People are doing so because the math is not mathing.
Assuming that all the claims are true, this would lead to a collapse under its own weight, because at that point, supposedly, most people won't be needed in the jobs they currently occupy.
Assuming the claims aren't true, there will be a reckoning where all the glitter thrown will hit the ground and people that invested would like to have their marbles back at whatever the cost.
I'd be betting on the latter rather than the former. BECAUSE all those companies are RUSHING for an IPO because none of them want to be left with the bag.
Just for the sake of comparison and to put things in perspective, just for the spaceX situation, running a datacenter is no easy task and require significant maintenance and supporting infrastructure, now you're going to tell me that you can achieve the same and even more in space where virtually everything is more complicated to achieve? And you're telling me that your entire business, or at least a big majority of it, will be this entirely unproven infrastructure? Seems like a bit of a stretch to me...
Now this being said, somehow some things may lie in the middle, but people seem to be a bit either too fond of the claims or too aggressive towards some part of the tech stack.
Have they even talked about how they’re going to handle the heat?
I’m willing to believe the construction is plausible (maybe not cost-effective, but possible), and robotic operation of it is a stretch but with some optimism I could be convinced.
I don’t see how they can get rid of the heat, at least in a realistic way that isn’t “a square kilometer of black body radiation surfaces” or something equally “works on paper, so uneconomical it will never actually happen”.
Heat is where the math breaks down. If you examine the heat the ISS is able to deal with (about 70 KW) vs say a H200 SXM5 (700W), you can stick a grand total of 100 units there, or about 12 nodes. This isn't even accounting for supporting infrastructure, compute, etc., nor are we taking a power source into account.
Either there's a revolutionary heat dissipation system in the works they're keeping a secret, or my ass is getting a smoke rash.
If I remember everything is open hardware, CERN should have those repo accessible, last time I used it it was still very much in dev, especially their PCIe cards with custom kernel. This being said, I haven't touched it since ~6 years ago...
Joking apart, the whole thing was both an exercise in madness and genius. Sometimes I wonder what he would have done if he had not gone crazy. We will never know...
He'd probably be writing poison pill generators for AI, obfuscation tools (in the vein of public key crypto, but using entirely plaintext, in a style similar to Cockney rhyming slang) for social media posting.
He was pretty anarchistic and antiestablishment. I'm sure we'd still see that coming through.
> Sometimes I wonder what he would have done if he had not gone crazy.
At what point do you consider he had "gone crazy" relative to the development of TempleOS? Only when he committed suicide? Shortly before then? Last ____ years of his life?
Without trying to sound insensitive, I'd personally argue the entire OS was the byproduct of a "crazy" individual.
The inspiration may have been all "crazy" but the implementation was still really neat, and it takes a lot of effort and skill to get to the point he did before his death. The thing about people who lose touch with reality is that their efforts to create or express something often make no sense to the rest of us. TempleOS, however, works. Terry create an OS from scratch, an entire new language (or variant of a language) in the form of HolyC, and not only does it all work together in a way that requires no disconnect from reality, it works well for his goals and philosophy.
The entire thing may be the result of a person suffering from schizoaffective disorder, but that person still held a great deal of skill to implement that idea and enough of a touch with the reality of computer hardware to make it happen.
As an educator I always make a point to give the resources to the students and or give avenues to it that are not paywalled.
Knowledge is the only resource that only becomes greater the more is shared because people share back what they learned. Mind you this only works if people are paying it forward. But often the educator gets more from teaching than the student does.
We? I don't think I've seen anyone but the people absolutely not understanding the gravity of the situation were cheering on. And I'm not even American.
Well over here, 30% still approve of it and they will openly praise how much money DOGE "saved us." It's quite eye opening talking to them. They live in a totally different reality
Any time they act like they disapprove of something the administration is doing, like the aimless war, they will change their tune in a few weeks when Fox gets it's talking points down.
"We" is such an imprecise word for a pool of people. I believe Chinese has two flavors, "zanmen" including the listener too, and "women" excluding the listener. Obviously "we" did not elect Trump, only "a majority of the US voters who voted", and even the others may sadly use "we" though they didn't, because they are members of the political body that did. Just like the "they" of Israel that harass Palestinians and throw up West Bank settlements do not reflect all of Israel, and the average Soviet citizen did not reflect the behavior of the Soviet government.
We isn't an imprecise word at all, it's very precise in it's definition.
I can honestly not come up with a single example of the distinction between 'zanmen and women' being useful besides this specific case where you really want to be able to say in 1 sentence that you identify as the same group as someone else, but that that group is subdivided into 2 groups, and you're talking about the sub-group that you're specifically not a part of.
I mean, jokes are made to uplift, intent in joking is important and punching up is preferable to punching down, this being said this didn't apply to chuck Norris that would have already got to the punchline without throwing a single fist.
Assuming that all the claims are true, this would lead to a collapse under its own weight, because at that point, supposedly, most people won't be needed in the jobs they currently occupy.
Assuming the claims aren't true, there will be a reckoning where all the glitter thrown will hit the ground and people that invested would like to have their marbles back at whatever the cost.
I'd be betting on the latter rather than the former. BECAUSE all those companies are RUSHING for an IPO because none of them want to be left with the bag.
Just for the sake of comparison and to put things in perspective, just for the spaceX situation, running a datacenter is no easy task and require significant maintenance and supporting infrastructure, now you're going to tell me that you can achieve the same and even more in space where virtually everything is more complicated to achieve? And you're telling me that your entire business, or at least a big majority of it, will be this entirely unproven infrastructure? Seems like a bit of a stretch to me...
Now this being said, somehow some things may lie in the middle, but people seem to be a bit either too fond of the claims or too aggressive towards some part of the tech stack.
reply