> Every startup begins with lots of debt and little revenue and a all in bet that it’ll change. Sam’s company unsurprisingly follow same playbook

This reads like an intentional misunderstanding of the general concerns around this current boom. The arguments aren't about the odds of the bet, they're pointing out that in fundamental ways the bet itself doesn't make sense.

I also wouldn't describe this post as "doomerism", it's basically pointing out that this "bet" only makes sense if the plan is for the US public to ultimately be the ones paying for the risks being taken.