No mention of the fact that AI recently took over nationwide air traffic congestion, as per this earlier story:

https://slashdot.org/story/26/...

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/f...

Claims it is due to a 'telecommunication issue'. Makes no mention of the recent AI ruling

"History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of man"

noai.duckduckgo works perfectly well. You can blacklist the other domains if you want to ban AI from your classroom.

But practically speaking, the most common ways to meet a future spouse organically (as opposed to through dating apps) are meeting through friends, meeting at bars, and meeting at work. If you're at that level of a company, your friends mostly are as well, so you're mostly going to meet other execs, and Nvidia sells to almost everybody, so your rules put all of them off the table. You're unlikely to have time to go to bars after work, so that's probably out. And anyone you meet at work will be your subordinate, so that's out.

This leaves... basically no opportunities for naturally meeting someone and striking up a relationship.

Just saying.

Sure. But bear in mind that the heat dissipation is caused by the power consumption, because approximately all of that power consumption eventually becomes heat. So it's two sides of the same coin.

The 1 GW power consumption for a data center is more than four orders of magnitude greater than the most powerful satellite solar arrays ever built to date. (The current record is about 30 kW, I think.) And as long as that is true, it won't really be feasible to put anything approaching an actual data center in space. The tens of thousands of additional launches to get giant fin radiators for the heat dissipation are just the icing on top of an already absurdly impractical cake.

Musk's proposed 250 kW satellite is almost an order of magnitude bigger than anything that has ever been built, and will need an order of magnitude more fin area, but that's at least maybe within the realm of modern heavy launch systems. So again, a single rack in space *might* be feasible, but you'd only have fast access to other stuff within a single rack, which likely limits you to a single instance of current frontier data models, give or take. And one rack likely won't be enough for much longer.

Couple that with 6-year depreciation, where it is expected that the hardware will be so outdated in 6 years that it won't be useful to keep it running, combined with the comical levels of effort required to upgrade a data center in space and the high probability of something that big causing actual damage if you were to deorbit it rather than upgrade it in place, and you have a recipe for bankruptcy.

So this isn't practical on many, many, many levels, not just power consumption or heat dissipation. It's neat from a "Look at us! We can put data centers in space!" perspective, but it's about as practical as a unicycle for quadriplegics.

Could, sure, but there are also very easy ways to mitigate that risk. You can have someone else write that person's performance reviews and manage that person.

Also, when that person is a VP, there's not a whole lot of manager discretion when it comes to performance reviewing, choice assignments, mentoring, or discretionary rewards anyway. Each VP is in charge of a specific area, and the choice of who becomes CEO later is made by the board, not the outgoing CEO, so it's not like he has any say over who gets promoted.

But either way, he could put it in the hands of the board, and that would be the end of the problem.

The challenge, of course, is that when you're in that position, everyone at the company is your subordinate, so if you want a relationship, your choice are execs at other companies or a subordinate. The guy is married, so he shouldn't have had another relationship at all, but if we ignore that moral question for the moment and pretend that he was single at the time, you've just eliminated pretty much every kind of relationship he could realistically have, and that bothers me a bit.

IMO, when someone in a position of authority over someone does something like that, the right questions to ask are who initiated the relationship, whether the other person felt pressured to accept, whether it happened suddenly at the start of the job or after years of spending time together, whether he took steps to protect her from retaliation (e.g. talking to the board about it), etc.

Of course, whether women felt harassed or not, there's still a bright-line problem; he is married, and shouldn't have gotten involved with someone else. But that's a moral concern, not an ethical or legal one. Is that adequate reason to force him to step down? Depends on the company and the image they want to convey.

The real question in my mind is whether the people wanting him back are women or just men. If only men are complaining, then that means the women have concerns, and we should err on the side of caution and listen to the women. If both are complaining equiproportionally, then we should listen to them.

... with the caveat that they all just lost a lot of money, which might bias their attitudes more than just a bit, and those biases should also be taken into consideration.

We need to stand up to google. They need to know they sell products to us, rather than force them on us.

Just use other searches. Duck Duck Go is basically a google search that isn't a privacy invasion. Or use Bing, or a hundred others.
 

Solar panels in low earth orbit get only about 5x as much power per square meter as solar panels on the ground. A modern AI data center uses upwards of 1 gigawatt of power. In low earth orbit, at 1.361 kW irradiance per square meter, even if your solar panels were 100% efficient, a data center would need 735,000 square meters of solar panels, or almost 1.5x the size of Vatican City, or 137 football fields, or...

Mind you, presumably an in-space data center would be broken into hundreds or thousands of satellites operating together, but the largest in-space solar array ever built is only 3,244 square meters, and that's on ISS, and was assembled by people over many *years*. (The original was 2500 square meters, and it took eight years to expand it to 3,244.) Even if you divide that a thousand times, it would still be about three times as big as the largest solar array ever deployed automatically from a satellite (as opposed to being built in space like ISS).

And real-world panels are only about 30% efficient, so multiply those numbers by three.

I'm not saying it's impossible, because it isn't, but even if we optimistically assume that a launch can lift 1,000 square meters of panels (4x the monster satellites SpaceX is planning), you're talking about 2,200 launches for the panels alone, and probably at least 20,000 launches for the trusses to hold them. Even if SpaceX's peak launch rate of 3 per day is sustainable, a single data center would still take well over two decades to build. And this is probably optimistic by a factor of two to four.

So not impossible, just completely and utterly infeasible without multiple-order-of-magnitude improvements in efficiency.

This is not to say that having that sort of capacity in space won't be useful for certain purposes. The planned SpaceX satellites are supposedly going to have solar arrays of 250 kW, which is enough to power basically a single rack in an AI data center, so if that's enough compute power for you, great. But realistically, you're more likely to see data centers in space powered by nuclear power than solar power, assuming politics allows that to happen. The size requirements just don't work without being able to spread the panels out on the ground over many miles.

Capping the capital gains tax break is, of course, the right answer.

The capital gains special tax rate should apply to a maximum of $500k in income plus any gains from the sale of your primary residence (and only your primary residence, not any other real estate). Everything above that should be taxed as ordinary income. And critically, that $500k number should be automatically adjusted annually, indexed to the CPI or some other reasonable inflation metric of your choice.

Maybe also allow a once-per-decade exemption for sale of a partnership or sole proprietorship. Maybe. I could go either way on that.

But the special treatment for income from stock sales, stock dividends, and interest should be capped.

"promises not to use captured photos or videos for AI training or targeted advertising"

Google's promise is as valuable as their commitment to 'not be evil'. On a scale of 1-10, that is a -4

Moreover, note it only promises for those two things. 10 years ago they would not have mentioned AI training cause it wasn't a thing yet. I wonder what is not a thing yet today but will be in 10 years.

Promise not to use our video for ANYTHING, anything less is not a promise at all.

The fact that they make sure to include that repeatedly tells me that the real reason is they have their own AI agent that they want you to use, possibly for an extra fee, definitely trained to not bypass all the dark patterns they use to upsell you shit.

Oh, and there'll be absolutely no problem with giving THAT one all your personal and financial data, because trust us bro, we're the airline, we're famous for being totally not sleazy...

How stupid do you have to be to give financial permissions to devices known to hallucinate.

Congratulations you have bought $30,000 worth of shares in the Brooklyn Bridge.