Yes and yes.

https://hackaday.com/2025/06/1...

"This is where skepticism creeps in. After all, cooling is the greatest challenge with high performance computing hardware here on earth, and heat rejection is the great constraint of space operations. The âoeicy blackness of spaceâ you see in popular culture is as realistic as warp drive; space is a thermos, and shedding heat is no trivial issue. It is also, from an engineering perspective, not a complex issue. Weâ(TM)ve been cooling spacecraft and satellites using radiators to shed heat via infrared emission for decades now. Itâ(TM)s pretty easy to calculate that if you have X watts of heat to reject at Y degrees, you will need a radiator of area Z. The Stephan-Boltzmann Law isnâ(TM)t exactly rocket science."

Devil will be in the details for how much cooling capacity is needed to reject the heat generated by the GPUs, how long the satellites are designed to last, stationkeeping, etc.

The current trend is toward smaller, disposable satellites, so I don't know if what Bezos is envisioning is a massive distributed cluster of smaller satellites, or a return to larger satellites that are docked to a compute pod payload...

I mean, this could be one possible proposal for keeping the ISS - jettison most everything but the solar panels and radiators, and add station keeping and a compute payload module. Keep the cupola, canada arm, docking capability for tourist and maintenance visits.

Sure, it's right before the Antifa chapter meeting at the bingo hall.

One side says the border isn't a problem when it observably is and that inflation is under control when it is not.

The other side tells you that American cities are a "war zone" and that immigrants are eating dogs and cats off the street.

Both of these are the same. /eyeroll

This is fair, to an extent, but the "one side is far worse than the other" is an acknowledgment that many people stop far short of.

No, we're at the "prove it" stage.

Sure, it's fair and accurate to characterize the response to those issues by "the left" as such, but I was talking about "the press" which did no such thing. If your point was to dispel the myth of the "liberal media", you did a pretty tidy job of it.

That's because "both sides are bad" is an escape hatch that gets one out of the uncomfortable position of having to critically evaluate the two.

Political parties have become tribes, and now at least half of the country has lost the capacity for being critical of their own. I don't see how this gets reconciled peacefully, let alone amicably.

...but this could be a national emergency. I mean, I can wait to buy a new Land Rover Jaguar, but I gotta have my beer......

-m

No actual mainstream press outlet has taken any of those positions, so as usual, you're just making things up so you have something to be angry about.

Fox News started this idea that political reporting always needs to treat both sides of an issue as equally valid, regardless of how closely either side adheres to facts and and good-faith arguments.

"Fair and Balanced" as it has become would demand equal time for Jews and Nazis in a piece about the Holocaust.

Good advice for the people who get triggered over trigger warnings.

If it doesn't apply to you, it's not about you, and it's certainly not threatening you. Just get over yourself.

What could you possibly imagine a warning at the beginning of a video is demanding of you?

It sounds like you need a trigger warning for trigger warnings.

At least it gives you something important to get up on your soapbox over.

unlikely it will be good for much with less than 1GB memory available. Should be a good reminder that true personal computers are still available and at only a modest cost premium.