Don't forget to account for attrition -- satellites are known to stop working and/or decay out of orbit over time. In the worst case, SpaceX could start losing satellites faster than they can replace them. But even in the "everything went exactly as planned" case, having an orbiting array of ten-to-twenty-year-old GPUs is probably not going to be the money-making asset people imagine it to be; it would be like trying to selling CPU time on a network of Pentium 4's today.

What's the benefit of launching a nuclear-powered data center into space, over just leaving it on the ground and running it there?

Elon's smart enough to know it won't work -- but he's also smart enough to know how gullible his fan club is. He's discovered that he can convert bits and pieces of 1960s sci-fi novels into easy money and online adulation.

I suspect SpaceX would be putting a lot less money and effort into mitigating the negative effects of its data centers if their host states had remained red. Regulation of the AI industry is already having a positive effect, and it hasn't even been written yet :)

Whether SpaceX's current efforts will be enough to mollify their new blue overlords remains to be seen.

It's now more accurately known as Microsoft 364.

Motor starting inrush current is massive compared to the running current, but it happens so briefly that it *usually* doesn't matter. An AC unit that runs at 8-9 amperes may take 90-100 amps or more to start, causing blown breakers, or even main breakers if the system is being taxed by another high current job like running an oven or charging a car. Nobody runs a 100 amp circuit to an AC system that calls for a 15 amp circuit, and neither does the unit have lugs big enough to accommodate that kind of wiring. If it causes problems there are workarounds like soft start controllers, or motor-rated breakers that better tolerate short spikes of high current.

Dunno why everyone thinks Terminator is prophetic. If you want to see robots hunting people down, there's plenty of footage of that coming out of the Ukraine already, and none of it involves humanoid robots. If you want to know what getting hunted down by a robot will be like in the future, imagine a swarm of mosquitoes coming for you, except instead of trying to extract a little blood, they're trying to inject a little cyanide. No self-respecting military is going to buy expensive human-sized killbots when miniaturized ones do the job better and quicker at 1/1000th of the price.

What would Iran gain from messing with France?

I'd think Mr. Putin would have more of a motive, since France (along with most of Europe) is supporting his opponent in Ukraine and he seems to be trying to probe their resolve by "accidentally" sending drones into their airspace from time to time.

If ever there was an industry crying out for regulation, it's the AI industry. I say that not because I'm against them, but because they would actually do better in the long run if they were regulated, instead of goading other into this insane game of chicken where everybody loses when the bubble bursts.

Would you believe, so they can be used as an energy storage system?

It's actually a pretty good idea, but only if you can keep the command-and-control system secure.

Alas, it's historically been easy for people to slip into a mindset of "no hacker would ever know or care about OUR little system, because [reasons]", and use that as a justification for ignoring security concerns altogether.

Of course that's never really been the case, but now that any bozo with $200 in their pocket can just pay an AI to find every possible security hole and report back, it's REALLY not the case.

Outright hostility, you say? I can't imagine how that came about.

It's quite possible; OTOH having drones flying over our nuclear plants isn't something we should feel blase about. Maybe a drone swarm can't do much actual damage to a nuclear plant, but the fact that people are flying drones (deliberately or accidentally) in a restricted area is bad news all by itself; it suggests either complete ignorance of the law, or bad intentions.

Why not boost the ISS instead of de-orbiting it? Is it because it's just too old to keep safe for human habitation, regardless of what orbit it's in?

This month: Everybody meet Paddy! He's going to use AI to rewrite all of our legacy software for practically free!
Next month: Our AI initiative has failed, entirely due to Paddy's incompetence. Please escort him from the building immediately and make sure he never works here again.

Nah, that would be gauche. Instead, we implement the cap relativity-style, where your tax rate increases proportional to the amount of money you've made already. As you keep making money, you asymptotically approach the financial "speed of light" but can never quite get there because in order to actually reach it you'd need to earn an infinite amount of money.