Okay, what engineer sent out a BGP message claiming a hop count of 1 to 0.0.0.0 and routed the entire Internet through his workstation this time?

Yeah, he only owned a few percent of Nvidia. Much easier to get voted out when you're not voting half the shares yourself.

But practically speaking, the most common ways to meet a future spouse organically (as opposed to through dating apps) are meeting through friends, meeting at bars, and meeting at work. If you're at that level of a company, your friends mostly are as well, so you're mostly going to meet other execs, and Nvidia sells to almost everybody, so your rules put all of them off the table. You're unlikely to have time to go to bars after work, so that's probably out. And anyone you meet at work will be your subordinate, so that's out.

This leaves... basically no opportunities for naturally meeting someone and striking up a relationship.

Just saying.

Sure. But bear in mind that the heat dissipation is caused by the power consumption, because approximately all of that power consumption eventually becomes heat. So it's two sides of the same coin.

The 1 GW power consumption for a data center is more than four orders of magnitude greater than the most powerful satellite solar arrays ever built to date. (The current record is about 30 kW, I think.) And as long as that is true, it won't really be feasible to put anything approaching an actual data center in space. The tens of thousands of additional launches to get giant fin radiators for the heat dissipation are just the icing on top of an already absurdly impractical cake.

Musk's proposed 250 kW satellite is almost an order of magnitude bigger than anything that has ever been built, and will need an order of magnitude more fin area, but that's at least maybe within the realm of modern heavy launch systems. So again, a single rack in space *might* be feasible, but you'd only have fast access to other stuff within a single rack, which likely limits you to a single instance of current frontier data models, give or take. And one rack likely won't be enough for much longer.

Couple that with 6-year depreciation, where it is expected that the hardware will be so outdated in 6 years that it won't be useful to keep it running, combined with the comical levels of effort required to upgrade a data center in space and the high probability of something that big causing actual damage if you were to deorbit it rather than upgrade it in place, and you have a recipe for bankruptcy.

So this isn't practical on many, many, many levels, not just power consumption or heat dissipation. It's neat from a "Look at us! We can put data centers in space!" perspective, but it's about as practical as a unicycle for quadriplegics.

Could, sure, but there are also very easy ways to mitigate that risk. You can have someone else write that person's performance reviews and manage that person.

Also, when that person is a VP, there's not a whole lot of manager discretion when it comes to performance reviewing, choice assignments, mentoring, or discretionary rewards anyway. Each VP is in charge of a specific area, and the choice of who becomes CEO later is made by the board, not the outgoing CEO, so it's not like he has any say over who gets promoted.

But either way, he could put it in the hands of the board, and that would be the end of the problem.

The challenge, of course, is that when you're in that position, everyone at the company is your subordinate, so if you want a relationship, your choice are execs at other companies or a subordinate. The guy is married, so he shouldn't have had another relationship at all, but if we ignore that moral question for the moment and pretend that he was single at the time, you've just eliminated pretty much every kind of relationship he could realistically have, and that bothers me a bit.

IMO, when someone in a position of authority over someone does something like that, the right questions to ask are who initiated the relationship, whether the other person felt pressured to accept, whether it happened suddenly at the start of the job or after years of spending time together, whether he took steps to protect her from retaliation (e.g. talking to the board about it), etc.

Of course, whether women felt harassed or not, there's still a bright-line problem; he is married, and shouldn't have gotten involved with someone else. But that's a moral concern, not an ethical or legal one. Is that adequate reason to force him to step down? Depends on the company and the image they want to convey.

The real question in my mind is whether the people wanting him back are women or just men. If only men are complaining, then that means the women have concerns, and we should err on the side of caution and listen to the women. If both are complaining equiproportionally, then we should listen to them.

... with the caveat that they all just lost a lot of money, which might bias their attitudes more than just a bit, and those biases should also be taken into consideration.

Full moon areas are pretty standard units in astronomy journalism. The summary also says it's 14% of the mission goal, which is "more than a third."

Their IPO paperwork was, to put it lightly, very confident in that future.

It wasn't really. It talked about it a lot but on the will-it-work front it said "we've got no idea."

I'm sure this is just a test. I'm looking forward to seeing the prototypes that sit in the Arizona desert and don't use any water at all, generate their own electricity, have no fans, and require zero staff or maintenance.

Ayn Rand was mentally ill. Just not severely ill. I wonder about those who believe she was a wise philosopher. The USA is #1 in cults for a reason...

A huge number of people meet their partners AT WORK.
Morons are usually pretty shallow people; so looks can be the main determining factor.

He is not a moron, he is smart. Attractive women for him are clearly not airhead teenagers obsessing over their looks to appeal to his base instincts to impregnate every healthy fertile female. The urge to mate with partners you connect with is natural and what is totally artificial, is monogamy. We didn't evolve for that old tradition that rarely gets questioned.

Nvidia did exceptionally well with this CEO... and China plus other nations know the value of getting to hugely influential people. This idiotic government didn't protect it's important people and probably even helped leak (by incompetence) this guy's personal life. Why not haul him before congress and whatever other group of morons to make him miserable as possible so he can quit or migrate to a place that will treat him better... like all those AI researchers who went to China because of the 1st Trump admin... or all the other smart people bailing out of this sinking ship... Turning on the bilge pumps in November after crashing into the iceberg a few years ago is only slowing the inevitable. We didn't even finish repairing the damage from the last disaster and we just went and crashed it again.

The CIA should be helping the man hide his secrets and live his life the way he chooses. A normal wealthy man likely gets away with this and a whole lot more in his failing democracy but when he is a target of foreign assets he doesn't have a chance alone - despite his wealth. Something embarrassing takes him down and having idiots in charge to rub salt in his wounds... possibly give him some more... (perhaps just for some insider trading gains...)

When something is working, you generally should not fuck with it. This man has likely just been removed from the chessboard. His usefulness at this point might not be that great but his replacement has as greater chance of adding to the enshitification.

Russian subversion is their primary weapon of espionage. Putin was in charge of doing that and when he rose to power he pumped more resources into it than they ever did during the cold war (estimated; but certainly there are more spies than the FBI is able to track as disclosed by an agent charged with tracking known spies.)

If you look into the techniques, you'll see them on display for decades now... but has been going on since the cold war; just much more so today and the impacts have been growing since then - even without an increased effort the damage of real cultural warfare is long and deep. You can see it in the declassified report on Facebook ads Russia ran which were not sophisticated yet. The whole point is to get factions infighting and undermine shared institutions that hold society together. They promote the toxic elements of Black Lives Matter and White Traditionalists trying to get them to fight each other by ignoring and corrupting their institutions to help their anti-social goals.

You couldn't purposely find somebody skilled enough to purposely enact the playbook as effectively as Trump has been doing. It's amazing they spotted him as a valuable asset in the 1980s and managed to recruit and promote him; all while being wise enough to be fine with his unstable behavior because regardless, his reverse Midas touch will benefit them in the long term.

NO AI IS NEEDED. People just arrested the nearest black male or the husband or whatever simplistic metric that replaced the work of thinking. Off loading to thoughtless habits is kind of how the brain works and software written by humans has already been used foolishly and it had bugs despite best efforts.

Sure you could make a system that uses many factors to recommend the best decisions; that is not new and obviously when it automates that analysis it will do better than humans under resource constraints most the time... it essentially is slowly and carefully done by humans but then that work is automated. Augmenting humans more and more until the human is just a manager or customer... or more like a dependent who is unable to do anything without it. It is quite fitting that the software industry early on honestly called it's customers, "users" just like the illegal drug industry.

So AI is self programming blindly as it always did; but the leap is how it's data mining existing solutions like it was previously written code. It's as intelligent as a web search... which is just a databank of existing solutions. It may be inferring at a basic level to do language processing because human languages are very complex and that is the breakthru which is possibly opening up huge areas of abilities but so far, it looks to me like it's not doing much... and new abilities are what humans are plugging into the conversational interface.

I frankly am sick of gluing APIs together to get components to talk to each other it's most of what programming is so something that can automate that accurately is very desirable... I just wish they'd focus on that instead of trying to completely replace everything we do.

Solar panels in low earth orbit get only about 5x as much power per square meter as solar panels on the ground. A modern AI data center uses upwards of 1 gigawatt of power. In low earth orbit, at 1.361 kW irradiance per square meter, even if your solar panels were 100% efficient, a data center would need 735,000 square meters of solar panels, or almost 1.5x the size of Vatican City, or 137 football fields, or...

Mind you, presumably an in-space data center would be broken into hundreds or thousands of satellites operating together, but the largest in-space solar array ever built is only 3,244 square meters, and that's on ISS, and was assembled by people over many *years*. (The original was 2500 square meters, and it took eight years to expand it to 3,244.) Even if you divide that a thousand times, it would still be about three times as big as the largest solar array ever deployed automatically from a satellite (as opposed to being built in space like ISS).

And real-world panels are only about 30% efficient, so multiply those numbers by three.

I'm not saying it's impossible, because it isn't, but even if we optimistically assume that a launch can lift 1,000 square meters of panels (4x the monster satellites SpaceX is planning), you're talking about 2,200 launches for the panels alone, and probably at least 20,000 launches for the trusses to hold them. Even if SpaceX's peak launch rate of 3 per day is sustainable, a single data center would still take well over two decades to build. And this is probably optimistic by a factor of two to four.

So not impossible, just completely and utterly infeasible without multiple-order-of-magnitude improvements in efficiency.

This is not to say that having that sort of capacity in space won't be useful for certain purposes. The planned SpaceX satellites are supposedly going to have solar arrays of 250 kW, which is enough to power basically a single rack in an AI data center, so if that's enough compute power for you, great. But realistically, you're more likely to see data centers in space powered by nuclear power than solar power, assuming politics allows that to happen. The size requirements just don't work without being able to spread the panels out on the ground over many miles.