And honestly, it is closer to the latter.

$20 billion sounds like a lot until you compare it to the reality of building a modern semiconductor fab. TSMC has already spent several times that on its Arizona fab, and it is still not operating at full capacity.

Why? Because the hard part is not just construction. It is the supply chain.

Take water, for example. Semiconductor manufacturing requires ultra pure water, but water chemistry varies by location. In Phoenix, TSMC had to design and build a bespoke purification system tailored specifically to local conditions. That is not a one off problem. It is the norm.

Or chemicals. The US does not produce some of the ultra pure acids required for advanced chipmaking. Those still have to be imported from Taiwan. And that is just scratching the surface. There are hundreds of highly specialized inputs and processes that have to align perfectly.

This is why ground-up industrial ecosystems are forming around TSMC’s Arizona site, backed by billions in private investment. Suppliers are willing to commit because TSMC has decades of credibility and long term sales already locked in.

So the real question is not whether someone can spend $20 billion (but probably *much* more.)

It is whether they can build and sustain the entire ecosystem required to make that investment actually work.

Ignoring the lack of chip-making talent existing in Elon Musk's companies, Do you really think he can pull that off?

Safe bet: Not a chance.

Actually, two things: Had that been a spy balloon, it was a gift from heaven for the sigint folks who could mislead it with intentionally fake transmissions. Second, it was large enough that it would have caused damage if it fell on the land. It was not possible to know where it would crash because it was high enough that modelling the tragectory of the fall was not possible with any accuracy. It could have squashed a cow, a building, or a person. Not worth the risk. Oh, and the third thing: In the end, it was a weather balloon, just like China said.

They could've left it open by renaming it. Seems to work for other government endeavors. Eg: F-47 and trumpkennedycenter.org ...

Whenever I report an obvious fraudulent posting on Facebook Marketplace to Meta, I get a form letter back telling me that the item I reported did not violate their community guidelines. Hmm. New iPad for $20.00 from a user that signed up a month ago. Better yet, make that a couple of dozen listings just like that, all using images scraped from eBay? I'd think Meta would provide much more value to their users if they would prohibit and remove postings like that.

It looks like the upper tank cracked and unzipped, dumping it's contents which quickly found an ignition source.

Being that the launch window to Mars is 7 months away, it's more unlikely that Musk is going to send his 5 rockets to crash into Mars.

Juan Brown has a youtube channel "blancolirio" that is insightful. He pointed out that you could hear the RAT a few days after the crash.

It's amazing how much people are willing to spend when it's other people's money.

Right now we know fusion power exists. All you need to do is look to the sky.

We know general intelligence exists, look in the mirror for an example.

The problem is, we don't know *how* to create sustainable fusion power on Earth with our current technology.

We also don't know *how* the human brain fully works and the mechanics of what makes us self-aware. That makes emulating it impossible.

Both disciplines have a vast amount of resources dedicated to figuring it out.

We can safely say, that we cannot predict when wither will come to fruition.

That leads to the joke, "Fusion power is always 50 years from *any* given point in time."

AGI isn't far behind that.

There is no such thing as the "welfare" of an AI model. Any company "researching" that is simply attempting to chisel investors. Now, there's no doubt AI has become good at emulating the responses a self aware and emotional person would have, but it is, at its core, not self aware.

That does not mean there aren't reasons to act "nice" to an AI. Here's a few I can think of:

- Children are the ultimate emulators. They do and will talk to each other as they hear you talking to an AI. Speaking to an AI in a way you would talk to a person sets a good example for them in developing interactions amongst themselves and others (humans) as they grow.
- Hearing a rude interaction sets the tone for a group. Better to give a positive spin when others are around. Best to keep the habit and try to do that all the time.
- Using natural spoken language makes training and improving the AI model more accurate.

There's more. None is for the well being of the AI, but the welfare of human's exposed to the tech should be what are most concerned about.

Why is it that fully usable and accurate AI seems to be like Fusion energy? Always a year (or more) away from any given point in time.

One thing you will never hear is that the copyright would belong to multiple entities. This sounds like a perfect example of why a copyright clearing house would be a good idea. It'll never happen though, the pie is huge and leaders of modern corporations are taught to take it all for themselves.

The anonymity of the Internet enables keyboard warriors to write things they never would say in public. It also allows (some) people in public to say things because they can reference what was said on the Internet.

If I am on a web site that's devolved from intelligent discussion to name calling and hatred, I go elsewhere. I take my eyeballs with me too. Advertisers know this. It makes bad business sense to allow a free for all on any social media web site. Those that are trying to do that, see X and Truth Social have seen advertisers leave, or never consider them as a platform to attract new customers.

That comes down to freedom of choice.

You can choose to allow chaos on your web site, I can choose to go to a different one.

Corporations can also choose to advertise on which ever web site they choose. Again, freedom of choice.

Anything else is at best whining and at worst, traitorous.

So, I do see "liberal" posts on sites like Facebook getting tagged too.

But that's not the point of it.

1: Sites that allow unregulated posts tend to offend (some) users.
2: Offended users go elsewhere.
3: They take their money with them.
4: Advertisers do not want to be associated with sites that offend.
5: They take their money with them too.

For reference, look at the growing list of companies that no longer post or advertise on X. Also look at the minimal amount of advertising on Truth Social.

Free speech is the foundation of our country, but when it's allowed to devolve into useless name calling and hatred, it's freedom of choice to not support it anymore.

I live in a "Dark Sky" neighborhood in Mesa, Arizona. Mesa is part of the sprawling Phoenix metro area, a massive city in the western U.S. To our east lies a national forest, while to the west is the city. Due to the brightness of Phoenix, we can only see the brightest stars to the west. However, our eastern view offers a good look at the night sky, considering how close we are to the rest of the city.

In keeping with Dark Sky principles, our area has fewer streetlights, and they're designed with shields to minimize skyward glare. Homeowners are also restricted to using exterior lights of 800 lumens or less (equivalent to 60-watt incandescent bulbs) in warm white only.

What Does This Setup Get Us?

  - Increased use of home outdoor lighting: People tend to leave their outdoor lights on longer to compensate for the dark streets.
  - Darker streets: Reduced street lighting makes it challenging to see pedestrians and critters at night, even with modern headlights.
  - Other hazards: The lack of sufficient lighting is a challenge for bikers and pedestrians.

Does It Save Money?

Let's break it down:

A typical LED streetlight uses about 120 watts, lighting the area in front of around 8 homes. If each of these 8 houses uses three 8-watt LEDs (60-watt incandescent equivalent), that's 24 watts per house or 192 watt-hours each for an extra 4 hours of use each night. Multiplied by 8 houses, this is 1,536 watt-hours, compared to 960 watt-hours for a single streetlight over 8 hours, and with the street light you get coverage all night.

Cost Comparison of Streetlight vs. Household Lighting

Streetlight Costs:
Total installation: $2,000 - $5,000, including the pole.
Lamp replacement: The lamp itself costs around $200 and lasts 20-25 years, while the pole (the most expensive part) lasts significantly longer.

Household Lighting Costs:
Bulbs: An 8-watt LED costs around $2.50, lasting about 5 years outdoors. Each house here uses 3 bulbs, which for 8 houses, costs around $60 every 5 years, or $120 over 10 years.

So, we’re looking at $100 for streetlight hardware over 10 years versus $120 for residential bulbs.

So, all else being equal and in short, it seems that streetlights are more cost effective over time due to their efficiency and durability, not to mention the broader, safer coverage they provide.

Go figure.

First, there's nothing out there that could last the 100 years it would take for a camera to reach the focial point. And, by which time it passes through that focal point with no way to slow down, it would only have a few seconds or less to get its data. Afterward, there are no more pictures to take. There may be a second mission for a device like that, but nobody would be alive to see the images who was there for launch, and it would be antiquated tech by the time it could get data to send back to earth at the end of its mission. We need faster space ships & a universe where physics doesn't hate us as much.