First, don't invke a "both sides" fallacy. It's stupid.
Second, is there any evidence anywhere that the US engages in any of these? Because it's already known that Russia does both, and in fact uses chemical weapons such as vx/novochik
Third, president Nixon issued an executive order mandating that no government entities engage in this in any way at all, and unlike your tsar's decrees, executive orders have no effect if they're not made pubic, so they can't be secretly cancelled, amended, or ignored. We have a system of checks and balances, you do not.

I would love for my devices to have their AI models local like Apple did. It is really annoying to say "Play song ABC" and even though ABC is a local file, my device goes to the cloud. But Apple gave customers privacy, security, and resiliency - and everyone complained that it took up space. So next time you want to complain that companies are requiring Internet connections for stuff that could be done locally, remember that someone tried and it was rejected.

So first it was opt in, but because nobody really wanted or asked for it, it became opt out. Still, nobody wanted it, so now they don't even get a choice. And ifans wonder why I don't like apple.

Probably worth mentioning at this time that Russia never stopped its bioweapons (and chemical weapons) research and development, which includes inducing antibiotics resistance into deadly microbes.

If this is what that is, you already know you can count on incompetent Russia to hit itself with its own weapon.

First of all, what do you mean by "a cure"? There are so many different ways that cancer varies that chasing after one cure to rule them all is just stupid. This is why the clinical definition of cancer is so narrow: A category of diseases involving cells that ignore normal signals and mechanisms to stop dividing or undergo apoptosis and can invade nearby tissue. Plenty of healthy tissues in your body do one of these but not another. So...how do you target them for a "cure"? The answer is and always will be: It depends.

Second of all, there's already a lot of money being put into cancer research. A great, great deal of it in fact.

Third of all, we already have cures for some forms of cancer. I myself had my cancer cured: I had basal cell carcinoma on the top of my ear lobe. Guess what the cure was? Pretty fucking easy: Pick up a scalpel, use the scalpel to excise the differentiated basal cells. Healthy basal cells will eventually take their place. There, cured.

That's probably because it's stupid.

This is exactly what I'm talking about with my original comment: You so badly overestimate your own expertise on this topic that you literally claimed to know that this is "not thermodynamically possible with known science". The problem is, nobody with actual expertise on this topic, including the ones who are saying this won't work, aren't making this argument. The actual experts on this topic aren't making arguments based on physics, full stop, mainly because from a purely scientific and engineering perspective, the concept itself has already been proven. The concept is only not proven when you take cost into consideration. But you're not making an argument based on cost, you're trying to make an argument based on science, and you lost that argument before you even started. And worse, you still don't even know why you lost that argument.

It's certainly doable, the question is and always has been a matter of cost. As somebody has already mentioned, there are currently several players investing millions into R&D on this. They wouldn't even be going that far if they had already concluded that this was impossible.

No matter who does it though, (Google, SpaceX, some smaller players) they're ultimately counting on Starship delivering what it promises. So far, Starship is doing that, just not on the original predicted time horizon.

This is already a solved problem. Old space just makes very large components (which are impractical from a cost perspective, but don't tell the ESA that, because they're the last holdout still relying on it.) New space relies on shielding, redundancy and error correction. Either way, this isn't an issue.

If it's that simple, then it should be pretty easy to show mathematic proof.

But don't bother, because you've already lost the argument: As with all things SpaceX that people claim are impossible until SpaceX actually pulls it off (and has over a dozen times now) they're talking about whether it's cost effective, not whether the physics works. No competent person is arguing that it can't physically work. SpaceX has done this so many times with so many things that you'd figure people would learn by now to make arguments based on cost effectiveness. Yet here you are, no mention of cost effectiveness anywhere.

And like most people who invoke it, you're misusing that term. Dunning-Kruger is meant for people who are actually experts in the field but overestimate their own competence in it. A perfect example of Dunning-Kruger is this guy:

https://x.com/Tazerface16

And here's why: He's an expert in aerospace engineering because that's what he studied and he's actually worked in. Yet he's fucking up on it big time by claiming that Starship will never make it to orbit, and his reasoning for that is sheer incompetence: His claim is (or at least was) that it's "too heavy" with no other qualifiers. Nothing about velocity, nothing about thrust, just "too heavy". Stupid. Particularly given it just recently went orbital. It was always a dumb argument, displaying incompetence, long before Starship made its first orbital flight. Sure hindsight is 20/20, but guess what? The argument never had sound footing to begin with, for exactly the reason I specified.

FUD about what, exactly? What is it you believe I'm trying to create fear, uncertainty and doubt over? I've always been a "wait and see" kind of guy. I don't make broad, sweeping comments on this or any other topic that I'm not an expert at. This topic in particular, I've made conjectures, but never any predictions. Can this be done? Maybe. My limited knowledge on the topic says a few things:
- We already know they can do meaningful work in orbit -- this concept itself has already been proven.
- Heat needs to be dissipated at least as fast as it is being produced.

But overall, will this work? My hunch is probably, but there are a few important qualifiers:

- How powerful and energy efficient are these TPUs we're putting in orbit?
- How efficient can we make these radiators? Google had to put a small scale bird into orbit, but the bigger they are, the more efficiently they can dissipate heat
- Can the compute yield over the lifetime of the hardware exceed what it costs to put it into orbit?
- Will it be cost effective?

And this is only a small slice of the variables we're looking at.

But you know what? I don't see any of you adding any of these qualifiers. Instead you guys just make broad, sweeping, absolutist statements as if you already have all of the knowledge necessary and you've done all of the math, when you obviously haven't. Take this comment:

If you actually believe that, then it should be easy to provide mathematical proof. So just do it already instead of running your mouth about shit that, at the end of the day, you really don't understand.

Like this? https://ourworldindata.org/gra...

Well that's one order of magnitude down, depending on where you place the goalpost. Starship only needs to halve the per kg cost of Falcon Heavy to add another one, again, depending on where you put the goalpost. If the goalpost started with the space shuttle, for example, then without question, it's doable.

You sound just like this guy:

https://x.com/Tazerface16

TL;DR claims to be an aerospace engineer and, for years, even as recently as April this year, was very loudly saying starship could never make it to orbit because it is "too heavy". How did that turn out? Basically, he just moved the goalpost. I'm sure that by this time next year, he'll move it again. Though common sense should tell anybody who isn't a total moron that "too heavy" doesn't mean anything at all if you're also using the thrust vector or some other proxy or analog for velocity as a qualifier. Not a god damn thing.

Claims like this should be easy to prove with nothing more than mathematics. So here's an idea: Show your math before running your mouth.

You know what the best thing about this topic is? Everybody who comments on it thinks they're an expert.

I am sorry, but your comment is completely wrong.

"Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" is a disproven theory. Human embryos do not have tails, chickens do not go through an embryonic stage where they have teeth. Your concept that this two-brain thing is a step in embryonic development is not what the article is saying.

Some years ago there was a very well-done and very popular drawing of human embryonic development showing a human going through evolutionary phases, and I too believed it for a while, but it was fantasy.

It isn't supposed to take it over, you think it is because your brain is entirely made of brown matter. These languages are not even trying to do the same thing. C# is not a systems language, by design. C++ is, by design. C# is garbage collected, C++ is not. C# needs a very large runtime just to do anything at all, C++ does not. Games written in C# will inevitably require more RAM and will be subject to GC pausing. Lower performance games can tolerate that, but games that push the hardware to its limit will be noticeably impacted by it.

This is like that stupid argument you keep trying to make about DRAM being closer to the CPU makes it faster. The only reason you think that is because not only do you think with your brown matter, you also have no idea how DRAM works, so you have no concept as to why that distance is a moot point.

Your domain of expertise is feces, not computers, and it shows.