> Granted there are scenarios where you want 100,000 "threads of execution." And that clearly is going to be impractical for system threads.

100,000 was impractical in the 2000's. Today, even with the default Java stack size of 1MB, 100,000 * 1MB = 100 GB of virtual memory. For IO bound tasks, actual memory usage would typically be a fraction of that, possibly under 2GB. That's definitely practical for a modern server.

> But if your worried about the overhead of your pool of 50 threads, stop it.

Yeah, people seem to misunderstand how thread pools work out these days. They're more limits on concurrency than anything else.