> All that stuff has to react rapidly

Just to add color ... equipment that has to do a lot of work quickly, even if intermittently, has a huge draw. Like your well pump or air conditioner when it starts up.

Now imagine you need to start a few dozen air conditioners simultaneously. The startup energy can be 10x the operating energy.

I've been doing the math on some of this for home solar. In my case I can ramp up the voltage over a few seconds but AIUI rockets still need instant action in many cases.

It's possible future reusable spacecraft could be more proactive, lowering costs and necessary chassis strength. Most of our technology starts off brute force and gets refined with more elegance but also more complexity over time. We're still early days in spaceflight.

How "bout those removable phone batteries?

Yeah, taxes are generally unavoidable for most people.

Hosting a blog on Substack is just a market choice among so many.

Apple and Google stores are a bit more grey; I'd allow it.

It's like those guys who find a Civil War chest with a hundred gold coins in it and call the FBI.

Clout is far too expensive.

This is the one where they investigate Office on Antitrust grounds and wind up settling for not bundling Edge.

I've seen it in reruns....

I said some kind words about Anthropic when they refused to do targeting foreign and domestic.

In retrospect that was myopic praise.

I resd a story about someone with Bitcoin keys on a laptop which they lost access to.

It was put on a shelf waiting for an exploit like this.

Nuclear reactors use most surface water, not ground water.

Datacentres are no pickier. You can even cool a datacentre with saltwater, you just need a heat exchanger.

Also, closed loop does not evaporate. The loop is not closed if stuff escapes from it.

You're arguing with the actual terminology used in the nuclear industry. "Closed loop" or "closed cycle" designs have the water pumped in a cycle through cooling towers. The towers lose water to evaporation, taking heat with them, but the rest of the water is returned to be reheated again. "Open loop" or "open cycle" designs have no cooling towers. The water is heated and just discharged hot. They consume much more water (over an order of magnitude more), but most of that is returned. Closed loop are more common, but you see open loop in some older designs, and in seawater-cooled reactors.

"How often do you think I print?"

Seemingly not very.

I've printed many hundreds of kg on my P1S, thanks.

I do not consider having to write data out to a card and transport it back and forth between the printer and the computer to be the pinnacle of convenience. That's something that would be considered embarrassingly inconvenient for a 1980s printer, let alone a modern net-connected device. And it's designed to be inconvenient for non-cloud prints for a reason.

blacklist: esp4 esp6 rxrpc

If you already did it for dirtyfrag you're good.

The trouble with Transhumanists is that they all imagine there will eventually be only one human per company with an army of AI's to do the work.

But they all think they'll be that one person.

Also, they're insane.

Boogergooks.

They've never met 7th Grade boys, have they?

Also, anything sounds big when you put it in gallons. Doesn't sound so big when you mention that's 92 acre feet, the amount used by less than 20 acres / 8 hectares of alfalfa per year. Or when you mention that a typical *closed loop* 1GW nuclear reactor uses 6-20 billion gallons of cooling water per year (once-through uses 200-500 billion gallons, though most of that is returned, whereas closed loop evaporates it)

I don't think it has anything to do with that. As soon as I saw the headline, my mind went "cohort study". And sure enough, yeah, it's a cohort study. Remember that big thing about how wine improves your health, and then it turned out to just be that people who drink wine tend to be wealthier and thus have better health outcomes? And also, the "sick quitter" effect, where people who are in worse health would tend to stop drinking, so you ended up with extra sick people in the non-wine group? Same sort of thing. This study says they're controlling for a wide range of factors, but I'd put money on it just being the same sort of spurious correlations.