Whaling is compared to businesses that rely on a small number of big spenders to be profitable because whaling is a similar high risk high reward business, compared to fishing. Whaling is even more dangerous than fishing, requires being at sea for a month at a time... if you fail to catch a whale, no one on the ship gets paid. Whalers were paid in equity. A lowly deckhand would make a very small amount compared to a spearman who killed a whale or the captain, but there were rewards for spotting the whale and even the deckhand would probably make enough money to take off work for a while before having to return to sea.
(Anyone else enjoy Moby Dick?)
Also, not the 19th Century anymore and anybody hunting whales is doing it for meat, because the "rock oil" revolution happened a long time ago.
Yes, but given your slightly OT rant, I suppose your reading is fresh?
I read a lot about games and whales, but your comment contained something new and refreshing.
I think for gaming it relates more closely to fishing and whaling, and how fishing is perceived. You're not hunting fish, you're fishing. I know poker uses both fish and whales as slang. If you rely on a couple big customers or players then you're waiting for that one big catch most of the time. Whales weren't just caught for their edible meat, and the other products such as oil were likely more important in the past.
I heard it was because Kerry Packer was overweight.
This is true only if it is presumed that the hunter is absolutely proficient.
I mention this because it would be reasonable to assume, based on "survival of the fittest" ideology, that an in-proficient selection-by-omission process would play a role in breeding more evasive and/or fiercer competitors.