Those would be linear or probably slightly less than linear costs though.

More people in a house eat more food, but you can buy in bulk for savings so cost per person could go down.

Utilities would scale more or less linearly given the area of the house stays the same. Water is iffy it might go up with more people having showers but might go down by doing larger washing loads at a time.

Transportation is interesting though as it's theorized cars having 5 seats caused a tiny effect on families only having 2 children because there's not enough room for 3 baby seats in the back of most cars.

How is it mind-blowing, if something doesn't work doesn't take a genius to say it didn't work.

But regulations are part of the market and should be taken into account when making business decisions.

I don't understand the situation but I can say there wasn't room in the market for the venture otherwise it would've worked.

and i'm gonna go out on a limb and say they didn't judge the market correctly. Otherwise there'd be a bank there.

Survivorship bias. You only see the banks on every corner in places where that type of thing can succeed.

A county with only 20,000~ people in the middle of nowhere where everyone who lives there is rich so likely has strong relationships with a big bank is just a dumb place to set up.

Iirc it's the food itself. A lot of preservation methods for meats (salting, smoking) cause high levels of nitrates and poly-cyclic amines that like to interact with cells.