I'm not trying to defend filling orbit with a million satellites but
there is already a large and knowingly always shaded space - Behind the solar panels. And solar PV is already a power limited supply anyway. So all-in-all it's certainly something that can be engineered for.

PS: When I said panels as an emitter there, I mean as a mount for back side radiators.

I'm certainly not defending Musk but I guess I'll say, from an engineering stance, you design to the limits. You have a heat budget, stay in it.

Solar panels can act as both energy collectors and emitters simultaneously. Basically, the panels define the power rating of the facility.

AI is the asbestos we are building into the walls of modern software. It's going to be a royal mess to clean up eventually.

The scary part is Musk isn't alone. The insanity of the LLM data-centre build out has got far too much money thrown at it already. There's no way it will be recouped. It can only end badly now.

I remember the days when car alarms were going off repeatedly all day long over the entire city in every city in the world. Anytime something slightly heavy drove passed would be enough to trigger them off. It was a fad for a while to have the alarms wired to motion sensors.

It had no competition. It was both popular and profitable for its time, though.

So you're a top-level executive type are you? And you creep around on Slashdot too?

As for why Concorde doesn't fly any longer: It was out of service for a couple of years right when the dotcom bubble formed. The Internet rage convinced a lot of executives it was suddenly cool to be seen on conference calls. Then Sept 2001 happened and flying on a weekly basis became even less attractive. A double whammy.

Concorde needed lots of high-end business travellers but they just weren't around in numbers any longer.

Concorde was very profitable at those prices. Only in the early days when they hadn't work out how much to charge did it lose money.

Yet another Trump back down.

... and get slop.

1: "Useful" is still not proven. If it stays dodgy then it stays the failure it already is.
2: Automation has been happening anyway. That's the "robots are replacing workers" thing from the past 50+ years.
3: Those imaginary boogeymen again.

It's actually another get paid to promote AI. So don't expect them to be fighting anything.

The catastrophe did not have to happen. Some restraint would've gone a long way. And significant directed investment would've made a big difference on alternative energy sources.

We had plenty of warning. Science knew the potential climatic behaviour a hundred years ago. Scientists measured the distinct trajectory in the 1960s. The knowledge to take action was understood by 1970. Nevertheless, by 1988 a full published study was presented at the UN - As a call for political action.

We all know how the politics subsequently played out. Exactly the wrong path was taken.