Arguments against history require more reasoning. Patterns emerge because that's how the systems work. "This time it will be different" require justification about why the system has significantly changed. The article makes a strong case for why the system hasn't changed.

What's different this time around?

The author made compelling points regarding capex cycles and supply/demand imbalances. So how does NVDA continue to deliver these returns over the next 10 years? Are the 4 firms driving >60% of NVDA's revenue going to maintain that high capex?

All it will take is a market shock that forces just one of these companies to pivot modes from spending to cost cutting for NVDA's bottom line to see material compression. This is not to say that NVDA will disappear, but it's a very real risk that sets the stage for contagion given how coupled all this growth is.