Friedberg

And they're still using these chips.

And what Gap says is that only if the new asset, meaning the new chips, replaces the old one,

then the old assets remaining useful life has to be marked down and you take accelerated depreciation that year.

Or if the maintenance costs spike, which means you have to spend money to fix the asset, which is not the case with chips.

The third is if the throughput requirements exceed the old equipment capabilities, forcing early retirement.

They're not retiring.

They're still making revenue off the old chips.

Or if technological obsolescence means that you're putting it up for sale, meaning you stop using it after a

Yeah, and if you put it up for sale, you would actually know the market value of it.

You could take that from the depreciation.

This is almost textbook gap, which is that if you're still using the asset after six years, you can depreciate it over six years or whatever.

It's revenue, that's right.

On Grok, you mean?

But what do you mean 90% of their utilization?

Because if they're still making revenue.

what is the instructions we give to the accounting community on how to deal with that?

Dude, this is not that complicated.

In the past, there have been efforts to try and change straight line depreciation, but your point of utilization, I don't think is necessarily the correct one.

If they're still making revenue on that chip every year, year four, year five, year six, then they're still using it.

Yeah, so even if it just makes a dollar or two.