the company tries to prove its traditional search engine can keep its relevance in the age of AI
I would suggest the obsession with attaching AI to the search page/field/results like a parasite is not an indication they are trying very hard.
There aren't really any unsolved engineering problems. SpaceX can absolutely put a rack of nvidia GPUs into low orbit. We could have done that in the 70s. The argument is whether it's economical or not.
Bringing the cost down is also an engineering problem. NASA and the ESA both said reusable rockets weren't economical even though they already knew it was possible. The ESA even famously poo-poo'd the idea, exactly like you guys are doing here. I personally don't know whether this will work. If somebody -- anybody -- has an idea for how they can make it work, then unlike you and apparently most others on slashdot, I'm not going to try to stop it, nor do I see any good reason for that.
Besides, I'm not seeing the argument for fraud, which is what GP asserted, and is what I responded to. If you disagree, then who is defrauding whom? Perusing an idea that ultimately doesn't work isn't fraud, it's just business. Most ideas don't work, which is why so many businesses fail. That's why investing carries risk.
I can play the cherry picking game too:
I didn't cherry-pick anything. You tried to make the consumption sound like a bigger deal than it really is.
Is putting data centers in space more carbon emissions than not putting data centers in space? Yes.
Let's see your math then -- show us how much more carbon you save by keeping them on the ground. You're the one making the assertion on this, so put up or shut up. What you're doing here, by the way -- that's handwaving.
Is that available now?
I already made it abundantly clear that it's not. Regardless, the concept has already been proven.
https://www.pnnl.gov/news-medi...
Is this why they are installing a huge natgas pipe, because they're going to source their methane from atmosphere?
Perhaps to fuel a rocket. Gee, ya think?
Your tongue is red from drinking kool aid.
Actually, normal human tongues are red. The reason yours is that brownish color is because you eat a lot of ass.
The source of the money is not germane to the conversation. I don't care if he can bilk investors into paying for stupid ideas - that's been happening since the beginning of Capitalism.
I just told you, dingleberry, it's being funded by Starlink.
1. rocket launches use massive amounts of energy, and methalox engines output carbon when they do their job. You cannot argue against this, so you give some bad faith argument of whataboutism.
I didn't give any whataboutism. Putting your numbers into broader perspective isn't whataboutism, it's used purely to indicate how meaningless your argument is just by the sheer scale of it. You literally complained about the entire aggregate carbon output for the entire lifetime of this project, which pales in comparison to just one day of global methane use.
More carbon is more carbon.
Since you're splitting hairs over trivial amounts of carbon, why not off yourself? Less carbon is less carbon.
2. sure, he's made noises about atmo carbon sequestration. That doesn't exist. And if it did, HE IS STILL BUILDING A FOSSIL FUEL SOURCE PIPELINE.
I did make it abundantly clear that it's not a thing yet. How much more clear do you need it?
3. It doesn't matter who pays for shitty ideas, the ideas are still shit.
Umm...ok? If you're so certain about that, go short SpaceX and Tesla.
Stop trying to sound intellectual, you're so bad at it. I didn't handwave anything -- I literally told you that I don't know why it didn't work, and in a previous post I already told you that I have no idea if this concept will work at all. Handwaving is doing exactly the opposite, which you'd know if you weren't dumb as a rock.
Now correct me if I'm wrong as a mere Canadian and not 100% sure but if he dies doesn't that mean the (D) KY governor gets to appointment a replacement for what would have been his remaining term? Not wishing his death, obviously, just wondering what happens in that event?
For senator, most states allow the governor to appoint a replacement until a special election is held. In 5 states, there is no appointment and a special election will be held immediately.
For representative there is no appointment, the US constitution requires a special election.
I believe that the appointment can be anyone, traditionally it's someone from the same party. I seem to remember in one case the wife of the senator was appointed, his term was almost up and she knew what his position would be so it made sense at the time.
The only reason they are changing their tune is because of the backlash to them putting data centers in our backyards and vacuuming up the cash we'll be spending on electricity bills. Do not trust them, they do not deserve it.
Is that the only reason?
A simpler explanation is that they predicted in good faith but the evidence doesn't bear out the prediction.
At some point, the only people who subscribe to cable (or satellite) will only be those who flat out aren't interested in having an internet connection along with it. Either way, cable is for old people.
Non-sequitor. GP was specifically talking about going beyond LEO with a two stage rocket and at a low cost. So you came in and put the cart before the horse.
Actually I take back a prior comment I stated about you -- I doubt you understand any engineering at all. If you had, you'd be capable of mentally compartmentalizing problems into their respective domains.
As for why it didn't work in this particular case, I have no idea. I imagine they did the math and determined that it would work, but it obviously didn't. That's why you gather telemetry and iterate on your design. As far as I know, this was their first attempt.
Somewhere in that void you call a head, you concluded that if at first you don't succeed, then it's obviously impossible. This is probably why you never made it anywhere in life, and rather than fixing yourself, you sit here and complain about those who did.
And when did either of these places take away a yacht?
By the way, do you know why Francois Hollande end up lobbying against his own tax hike that was a key part of his campaign platform and promise?
Regardless, if you think the grass is greener, feel free to move there. I tell everybody this -- it doesn't matter where you live -- if you're unhappy there, then why would you stay?
If you already are in your preferred place, then...what are you complaining about?
You guys keep saying that it will work with democracy, but we've already observed exactly how that pans out: After the masses start to realize that this isn't such a hot idea after all, they vote you out. What happens from there depends.
In the case of Croatia, you guys just overthrow democracy under the reasoning (as argued by Karl Marx) this is all inevitable anyways, and you may as well get the red tape out of the way of progress.
In the case of Hungary, the tankies roll in from across the border, and those who still live under democracy and benefit from it cheer them on because they haven't yet had to live under the system they so desire.
The fact is, collectivism, in all of its forms, is fundamentally incompatible with democracy. Collectivism is about surviving. Individualism is about thriving. A case can be made for the former in times of war or famine where the main objective of the day is to live another day. But outside of that, it's not living.
You'll find nothing of value in his head, nor anything to drink. Your brain is the only one made of brown matter.
Heat dissipates passively in the form of infrared energy, space or not, it happens regardless. See also the second law of thermodynamics. So yeah, it's free.
The problem you're dealing with is dissipating it faster than you're creating it. Infrared alone is slow, but there are non-passive ways of radiating heat beyond normal infrared.
And because you're obviously confused enough to have such a dumb take, I feel I need to clarify something: When I'm talking about space, I'm not talking about the inside of your skull.
Bleh not "only", but you get the idea
So you would rather that we burn millions of tons of methane to hoist disposable data centers into orbit which cannot be serviced, so that they can fall out of the sky someday and we can burn millions of tons of more methane to replace them
And you're the simpleton I had to school yesterday about why SpaceX isn't concerned about an exploded rocket. So let's add more perspective for you to chew on:
- The numbers you're putting out here are barely a rounding error compared to just one day of global usage. And, this might come as a surprise to you, but there's no plan to build this in a single day.
- SpaceX is currently developing the technology to synthesize methane only from atmospheric CO2 at an industrial scale, and it's not just for this either, it's for SpaceX's broader mission.
because some asshole has a shitload of money to try it, in order to make more money for himself at the cost of whatever simpletons (like yourself) buy his bullshit?
You clearly have zero understanding of where the money for this is coming from. Here's a little factoid for you: Elon doesn't have a trillion dollars sitting around. He doesn't even have a billion. The money for this is not coming from Elon, and it's not coming from investor money either. It's coming from Starlink.
All the other things you talk about were never thought to be stupid, or a solution in search of a problem. They were research for the sake of expanding human understanding, which were then applied by engineers to do useful things. You can't even get that bit right.
I hope you got a fork, because you're about to eat crow:
https://press.uchicago.edu/Mis...
After that, you'll need a spoon to eat my ass.
Just because you *can* do something, doesn't mean you *should* do that thing. This is purely stupid, for purely stupid reasons - the billionaires are tired of doing what jurisdictions say, so they're trying to find somewhere extra-jurisdictiony to put their equipment.
Umm...ok...Look, I don't care if you want to go full fascist and decide all by yourself what people should and shouldn't do, just don't do it in my country. Not only for my sake, but for yours -- my country has a history of killing you guys.
This is a more expensive, less practical "Sealand" with a limited lifetime of operation that disproportionately pollutes. But you think that's a perfectly fine pursuit.
In the long term, this is only going to be a matter of which uses less energy: The launch, or the terrestrial datacenter.
Mind you, I'm not saying this is going to work. I really have no idea. I've seen a few ideas float around that look like they could work. The one thing I do know for certain is that SpaceX routinely does shit that people say is impossible or will never work, and then it works anyway. The main thing I object to is little Stalins like you who think they deserve to tell other people a bunch of "thou shalt" or "thou shall not"s just because of your stupid ideas about how economies should work, which don't align with how they actually work.
Non sequitur. None of your examples were ever thought to be "stupid." Maybe controversial for a time, but not stupid.
That's different from this...how? Anyway, allow me to introduce you to the "laser":
https://press.uchicago.edu/Mis...
Free to do whatever you want, as long as it does not impact others negatively.
In case you didn't notice, GP was upset over the idea that somebody owns a yacht, which is fairly common and not just a driveby analogy. So while they're potentially thousands of miles away at sea, he's steaming about the fact that they exist, because he has his own ideas about how somebody else's money must be spent.
What he is after is not what a free society looks like. Though some of you are of the opinion that a free society can't have rich people in it, so I may be speaking to deaf ears on this, but trust me, there are many very good reasons why socialism not only doesn't work, but makes people much worse off. Some of you guys argue "well if only it was tried!" but it has been, dozens of times, and every single time, as in 100%, the outcome was the same: Institutional poverty for all but the politburo and their inner circle. Hence why so few of them survived after the fall of the USSR, including the ones that weren't even in the USSR.
And launching a million satellites into earth-orbit space is likely to do just that. Its several orders of magnitude beyond the number of active satellites currently there.
So that Sandra Bullock movie you saw is fiction, by the way. Some of you guys are arguing that Starlink is pushing us there, only it's not, and in fact it can't. Below a certain altitude, smaller mass objects are easily countered by the atmosphere, which is where the real concern for Kessler Syndrome lies. The "kissing atmosphere" in that movie was stupid primarily because the atmosphere extends well beyond the altitude of the ISS, which also puts it well beyond where they were at in that movie. Entertaining sure, but that's all that it is. A lot of other problems with that movie as well, but you get the idea.
People shouldn't be allowed to just go ahead and do such things without compliance with regulations and treaties, just because they have the "time and money" to accomplish them.
And guess what? Nobody is.
And BTW, Russia has been un-free for a while now, not just "recently."
I don't know about you, but I've been watching the Ukraine war more than any other topic over the last few years. And to that extent, I've been watching what's going on with the Rusian economy. Sure, they're not free -- Gorbachev handed that to them on a silver platter, and in return they spat in his face. Russia does not want democracy. Russian culture is fundamentally incompatible with it. They longed for another Tsar, and they got one. Western values will never work there, nor should we try to force that on them. Russians are as Russians do. However, Russia for a long time didn't want to go back to socialism. Likely most of them still don't. But their government is pulling them into that direction. Private enterprise there is largely being taxed out of existence, and they're rapidly returning to pretend work for pretend pay. The private sector hasn't been nationalized completely there, but at this point, the private sector no longer has any autonomy from the government, making it just short of de-facto socialism. The only reason it's just short of it is that people are still allowed to go into business for themselves there, even though it's basically impossible without breaking the law by evading taxes.
"I've got some amyls. We could either party later or, like, start his heart." -- "Cheech and Chong's Next Movie"
