There's no way on (or off) Jupiter's Green Earth that you could ever put a terawatt of anything in space. Every one of those watts would have to be radiated into space somehow. Can you imagine how large the heat sinks would have to be? Keep in mind that radiating heat in a vacuum is about the most inefficient way to get rid of heat that one can think of. On Earth, you can use air and water to move heat around and then dump the air or heat into the environment. In space, you only have radiation, which is basically proportional to exterior surface area and temperature. And, that exterior qualifier is important in space. Using some kind of finned radiator like we use in air or water won't work very well, since most of the heat radiated off will just be re-absorbed by other parts of the radiator. This means that in space, the most efficient (in terms of mass and heat loss) is gigantic, quite thin, highly conductive disc of metal. To distribute the heat across the entire disc, you'd probably embed a grid of heat pipes.

And, then, holy space solar panels, Batman. A terawatt is a LOT of solar panels. You could probably make the solar panels double as radiators, but that would only work if you kept them relatively cool. You're still going to also need a bunch of radiator disc. The only way I think that you get possibly get this to work is to make like a sort of triangular prism type of design. Make one side solar panels and face the sun. Make the other two sides radiators. Keep the computers in the middle, connected to the radiators through heat pipes. And then you'd need a satellite dish sticking out one end, or, preferably, both, along with a smattering of thrusters.

Considering the difficulties in dealing with the and the delay added to communications by being in space (even LEO would be bad; roughly half the time the satellites would be on the other side of the planet.), it would be much, much simpler, and cheaper, to put all of that computing power on the ground, preferably nearer to the Poles than the Equator, and preferably near a large body of water, like a lake or ocean. The Great Lakes region in the US and Canada would be great. Solar power isn't super great around The Great Lakes, but wind power is quite feasible, and the cooling potential is off the hook. I mean, there's cold water everywhere. I would think that, in Europe, the fjords of Norway and Sweden would be pretty ideal. Iceland would be pretty good too, so long as you bring in enough cross-oceanic cables from Europe and Canada. The mere fact that you wouldn't have to launch satellites into orbit along would make Iceland seem like a steal compared to space, even with the cables. Hell, even Antarctica would be cheaper and easier than space, and would have similar ping times.

Well considering that cancer is a class of diseases, rather than a disease of and in itself, meaning that one cannot "cure cancer", only cure certain kinds of cancer one at a time, I'd say we're doing pretty well, thank you very much. I mean, we basically cured most types of vaginal, cervical, and anal cancers as well as a number of oral and esophagal cancers in one shot with this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

This. If I could upvoter you on this site, I'd make a stack of alts and mod you to the moon. The sooner this AI craze dies, the better. Even though I also think that quantum computing will likely remain a niche physics experiment until after I'm dead in fifty years, I support physics research wholeheartedly and desire for more of it. At least that has a hope being awesome. So far, these AIs have really only gotten good at talking people into suicide and annoying all of us mathematicians who know how it works.

Microsoft themselves actually did go after the Texas company nearly a decade ago and won. Why the government didn't prosecute them criminally as well is beyond me.

As far the the scam goes, I think people aren't wrote realizing that the CoA stickers aren't the license to use Windows. Will they activate a copy of Windows? Probably. I have no idea if Microsoft can blacklist blocks of stickers or not. I think what people are missing is that someone has to print up those stickers. This lady just bought a few rolls of those stickers under the table from the printer. But she definitely didn't buy licenses from Microsoft and I don't think, realistically, that she could have thought otherwise. Technically, when she was selling those stickers, it was a type of fraud because she didn't have the Windows licenses to sell, just the stickers, but any ordinary buyer is going to see the sticker and think they're getting a license, when they technically aren't. You don't really need to give out DVDs or other installation media anymore; anyone can get that from Microsoft's website for free.

(I would also like to point out that I think the person I'm replying to probably knows all of paragraph 2 already; I'm just making it explicit.)

But the courts have shot down that argument repeatedly now. Only humans can be a an author. Period. An AI is not a human and so can't be an author. A monkey is not a human and so can't be an author.

The courts have already addressed this and shot it down. No matter how creative the prompt is, the output of the AI is not eligible for copyright. The prompt itself may be, but only if it's actually creative and not just a rote list of descriptors. And even then, a prompt isn't all that likely to produce the same output every time. The way the LLMs currently work, there's quite a bit of randomness that go into the image generation.

I think it may be you who is confused about units. MW are power, that is energy per time. MWh is a unit of energy. 1 MWh = 3.6 GJ.

They are doing something about it. They've shut down the government in order to force ICE to knock their terror campaign off. Individuals are reporting and monitoring ICE agents while ICE engages in their acts of domestic terrorism. They are protesting throughout the country basically continually. They do shit all the time. They aren't exactly in power right now, so what they can get done is limited. Even when they've been in power in recent years, they haven't had the numbers to get good stuff through. This is largely due to successful campaigns by Republicans to suppress the vote and to gerrymander themselves into more representation than they deserve. If the playing field were even, Republicans would never win an election again, assuming Democrats don't do anything super dumb, like having Biden run for re-election.

So stop pretending that Democrats have dropped the ball. No. Republicans took the ball and punted it into the sun and then got a bunch of M4A1s out and started threatening and even murdering everyone who points out they're cheating.

I can't think of the last time any Democrat led government had straight-up murdered people in broad daylight and lied about. Whenever bad shootings happen, Democratic prosecutors routinely attempt to prosecute the officers in question. Republicans congratulate them on their murder and try to blame the victims.

Fuck right off with this both-sides shit. When's the last time the Democrats ever advocated putting children in jail, separated from the parents, en masse, or sending thousands of secret police to terrorize and murder the citizens of cities run by republicans (no, they no longer deserve to be capitalized)? Oh, that's right: NEVER. That's because Democrats actually do care about the people and the rule of law. They aren't a crazy death cult run by a tyrannic fascist. Do they have problems? Sure. Are they on a level with the republicans' outright opposition to the Constitution, the rule of law, and of every form of justice? No, not even close. The republicans have buried themselves so deep in the evil mire that they should probably start worrying about buying fire-proof suits. If Hell exists, I'll see them burn in the deepest depths of the hottest Hells, from the Heavens, while me and Obama laugh it up somewhere out there in the Galaxy, while chatting casually with Jesus and the Buddha.

(And I don't want to hear any shit about the Democrats prior to the 1970's. Before then, the parties' loyalties were divided very differently. The parties back then are NOT the parties of today. They're related only through a shared history.)

People often misunderstand the works of Karl Marx. You, sir, understand perfectly. I mean, he was wrong about the whole Communism thing, but the idea that if the rich piss the poor off enough, the poor will rise up and kill them is pretty solid and has happened plenty of times. It's starting to happen right now again, it seems.

I mean, Jesus wasn't anything. He never existed IRL. But, setting that aside, if we look at the "teachings" of Jesus as a whole, it is a serious stretch to believe that Jesus would be a capitalist. If anything, he'd be a Socialist or a full-out Communist.
"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye than for a rich man to enter into God’s Kingdom." - Matthew 19:24
Jesus looking at him loved him, and said to him, “One thing you lack. Go, sell whatever you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me, taking up the cross.” - Mark 10:21
The list of saying goes on and on. Jesus didn't want you to hoard your money. He wanted you to support the poor. Now, in ancient times, supporting the poor was seen as a duty to be performed by rich individuals currying favor with the masses. Those individuals were effectively the government, at least in the Roman Empire, where Jesus was. Today, our governments are more centralized than in the past. The way that we, as a society, help all the poor is by having the government ensure that all people have what they need.

The particular way that has been found to most effective at doing that is a system we call Socialism. Socialism is a capitalist system, but with certain industries tightly regulated and (usually partially) funded by taxation set up to ensure that all people get all that they need. There's no chance that Jesus, given a choice between having everybody individually do good through charity alone and having everybody collectively do good through Socialism, would have chosen charity alone. He'd have picked Socialism.

This whole "He wanted individuals to choose to be good so the government can't do it for them" idea is nonsense. The government doing it IS everyone being charitable. Remember, the government IS THE PEOPLE. It is the collective will of all the people. If the government socialistically provides for the poor by taxing the shit out of the rich, then that IS the rich people being charitable. Yeah, it's not exactly by choice, but who gives a shit? The rich are still rich, even under Socialism, but at least your gardener can get his chemo when he needs it. I mean, you could still choose to be an asshole and just not be rich and pay little to no taxes, thus not being charitable. Or you could get rich AND have everyone in society be cared for. Why go for the shittiest option of being rich while everyone suffers unless you, personally, decide to be nice today? If you think that's a good world to live in, fuck your mother.

Seriously, this is such BULLSHIT. There isn't really that much CO2 in ordinary air. There's a lot of air, yes, so the total amount adds up, but on a liter per liter basis, air doesn't have much CO2. It has roughly 400 ppm aka 0.04% CO2. This means that for every liter of CO2 you want to collect, you'll need to pump 2500 liters of air, assuming you capture all the CO2. That works out that for every gram of carbon you collect, you'll need to process 4700 liters of air, minimum. If you do the math, it's roughly one Empire State Building's worth of air that needs to be processed to get enough carbon to make a single car-tank's worth of gasoline. The fans that you would need to move this much air, much less extract the carbon from it, would be enormous, and likely cost as much as a tank of gas costs to run. An Empire State Building's worth of air is a lot of air to move. And, of course, you need to do this at scale, which means you'll need many of these giant fans. And you'll need to be pumping the waste air far, far away from your plant before releasing it lest you accidentally pump in your now-carbon-free air for reprocessing, which would be a pure waste of time. The pumping costs alone would eat you alive. And this aside from the fact that we don't really have very good carbon dioxide removing technology. What we do have requires intermediate chemicals like lithium superoxide, which are quite expensive. Yeah, you regenerate it in the end, but some will be lost every cycle, and this will also cost a fortune.

Ironically, modern MS Office formats are no longer true "binary blobs". They're ZIP files with a different extension. Inside are copies of all the resources and the main file in the ZIP is an XML file. The actual name of the MS Office formats is OOXML, that is, Office Open eXtensible Markup Language. That isn't to say that .DOCX files are the way to go: sometimes they are; sometimes they aren't, but they aren't the completely proprietary garbage that OG DOC files were. You can even edit the XML in the ZIP directly with a text editor if you want, although I wouldn't recommend it.

Tell me you haven't used GLP-1 drugs without telling me you haven't used them. You probably also don't need them. I use one for control of diabetes. I'm also a big fat-ass. When I started using Mounjaro, I weighed 440 lbs. A year later, I weigh 370 lbs. A year from now, I'll likely weigh something like 300 lbs. If I stopped taking Mounjaro, would I gain back some weight? Sure, probably. Do I give a rat's ass? No. Absolutely not. I have never found any way to successfully lose significant amounts of weight. I've been able to occasionally take off 20 or 30 lbs, but it always came back and then some. With this, the underlying cause IS addressed, which is the unending appetite. GLP-1's work great at suppressing appetite, which is exactly what I need. I don't need someone trying to shame me into being hungry all the time. If I had the ability to walk around hungry to lose weight, I wouldn't weigh more than 300 lbs.

As far as having side effects like extreme hunger and lethargy, that's bullshit. First, you don't get extreme hunger. Your hunger is suppressed. If you don't eat anything for a few days, then, yes, you'll get extreme hunger, but that's pretty easy to prevent. Just make sure to eat once in a while. You also won't get lethargy because you still have plenty of energy stored in your fat cells. Your body will start to burn them readily, which is nice. And, you do have eat something. You'll get low blood sugar and get nauseated if you don't eat the occasional carb a few times a day. That's sort of the minimum. And, of course, you'll want to eat a bunch of protein and fiber because they fill you up, keep you regular (very important when you're eating so much less), and the protein keeps you from losing too much muscle.

As far as this not being a cure, in the sense that I'll likely have to keep using it for life goes: I do not give even the slightest hint of the tiniest fuck imaginable. It sure beats the Hell out of being fat. I mean, honestly, I'll take a weekly injection for life and lots of weight loss over having full-blown diabetes, extremely high blood pressure, pain, suffering, and all the other problems with weighing over 400 lbs. any day of the week.

If you're curious, I do get a few side effects. The main one is that I get a bit nauseated for about 20 hours or so starting about 12 hours after the injection. I sleep through like half of it. I'll take that over the alternative. And, after I've gotten the weight down and gotten the diabetes under full control (the latter has already happened), I'll be able to go down to a lower maintenance dose and likely even that side effect will disappear. The other side effect is that every few months, I'll hit a nerve or something with the needle and my leg'll be sore for a few days. It's pretty rare, though, and I don't care. I have pain killers for chronic pain that I can take if I need to. No big deal at all.

Also, what's with people thinking that there's some kind of nobility in losing the weight through diet and exercise alone? Why does that make you better? Oh wait, it doesn't. And, honestly, unless you have, at some point in your life, weighed over 400 lbs., your opinions on how to lose weight are worth less than nothing. You just don't know what you're talking about at all. No amount of willpower is permanent, which is why diet and exercise so rarely work. If that really was the answer, then no one would need any help to lose weight. We'd all know how to do it and then do it. It'd be easy. There'd be step by step guides that you could just follow and it'd work for everyone.

There are such guides, you say. Nonsense. I've followed those guides and they're bullshit. They might work for you, but not for me and not for most people like me. For people like me, the feeling of hunger is enough to move mountains. I've literally never gone to bed hungry. Not because I'm rich or a pussy or anything like that, but because I cannot fall asleep hungry. I will be forced awake all night long. I know. I've tried. It's that kind of shit that makes willpower useless. Before Mounjaro, I couldn't even skip a meal unless I was throwing up sick. The pain and terrible shaky feeling from being hungry would consume my entire soul and I'd be forced to eat something. Anything. And this was from trying to fast for one meal. I might have been to force my way through skipping one occasionally, but it was not a realistic long-term possibility. I was able to skip breakfast occasionally, but that's about it. And to do that, I'd needed to sleep in. With Mounjaro, I'm able to eat only one full meal per day, and two or three small snacks, plus a protein shake in the morning. I could never have dreamed of eating so little without it, and, trust me, I tried.

No. The liquid metal shape-shifting robot was the T1000. The movie's title was sometimes shortened to T2. T2 wasn't the name nor model number of the robot.