The only reason I see in putting those things in space is to do illegal things. Otherwise the economies do not make sense. The "terrorism" threat is nearly non existant in practice and only the legislative threat is real, which might be good cause to think about what you are doing in the first place.

> The only reason I see in putting those things in space is to do illegal things.

Consider a global human population, fractured into historically formed nations and power blocs. Consider corruption and clans taking up a fraction of positions of power at a certain duty cycle. It's unavoidable legislative bodies would eventually abuse control of technology, for those points in time yes, doing the right thing becomes doing the illegal thing, but only because corruption attained such powers.

> Otherwise the economies do not make sense.

The economics at what scale? At scales of earthly compute, earth is cheaper and more maintainable. At stellar scale, the power simply isn't available on Earth, so the most economic path is whatever is the most economic space ML datacenter path.

What the heck are you talking about? Basic grounding problem: who the god damn hell is going to be buying your AI compute from space if the situation on Earth has deteriorated that much? You know that place where 100% of your customers and the hostile legislative bodies would be.

> who the god damn hell is going to be buying your AI compute from space if the situation on Earth has deteriorated that much?

Militaries.

Ones that have to worry about local laws?

The movie Gravity was not a documentary. It broke more laws of physics than the claims about data centers do.

exaggeration makes visible, runaway collisions are definitely a problem. I didnt like the movie, but space collisions are no joke...

After two alineas I was fully convinced it was llm slop and the message it might have intended to pass is completely lost.

> so most of it can’t really be trusted.

And yet they is not how it is used, and is trusted beyond sanity.

Some demand. The question is if the capacity will meet it, be under or be over.

Not so relevant to this discussion, since if you are funded by patronage networks, you need to justify your work to your patron. If you are funded by grants or public research funds, you need to justify your work to the general public.

> you need to justify your work to your patron.

Assuming this is true, how did they justify their work, which had, at the time, no practical application?

They did that... I take it you don't accept their justification, but that doesn't mean an attempt wasn't made.

I'm another part of the general public, and I accept their justification.

We can all vote, or use whatever levers our political system gives us to show our acceptance/rejection of basic research, but IMO basic research is absolutely necessary.

Why did you include the source tracker in your link?

Definitely not on purpose! I keep forgetting that ChatGPT does that now, which is rather irritating because I don’t use it to write comments but the tracker makes it look like I do.

I do use ChatGPT to resolve vague memories of articles read long ago into concrete URLs I can share, which is one of the best uses of the accursed things right now!

I assure you that I am an organic meat human like yourself and the article dates itself to the “before times” and can also be trusted to be free of contamination.

ChatGPT is a far more useful search engine than Google, duckduckgo, etc.

It won’t last, but just as Google was so much better than hotbit, altavista, yahoo etc back in the day.

Isn't the point that there already is one?

Iirc the only way of getting near 30fps on a socket 3 board is by bumping the bus to 50mhz, having fast cache and a 5x86 and enabling branch prediction and the fpu optimisations. And then wait for it to fault out. Never tried it with an Pentium overdrive though, maybe that will work but those do not like higher bus speeds. Might also be a nice difference in DX4s since the amd and cyrix parts have different fpu implementations to the intel ones.

The harm is in the cost. Not the actual danger. Or are they going to pay for the damages caused due to lost productivity?

Protests are much less effective if they can just be ignored. At the very least "lost productivity" is a very abstract harm and not something that endangers human lives directly.

But its also not reasonable to let someone having grievances block the entire country. The farming industry is 1% of GDP in NL. Why do they get to hold the entire country hostage?

That does depend on the productivity being lost. No doubt many of the people who were unable to commute that day would have been doctors and nurses.

I think it would be of a stretch to actually claim that this specific incident caused loss of life, but it’s possible to see how such wide sabotage, especially conducted over a number of days, could result in compromised emergency services and result in loss of life.

Protests also tend to be more effective if the protesters involved actually make some clear demands about what they want. Simply breaking shit isn’t much of a protest.

Quite easy to go from a misdemeanor to terrorism charge if you sabotage the train network. IMHO likely those ** farmers causing insane amounts of damage while getting a slap on the wrist every time, that has to end. At least the climate activists only block one highway which you can work around. Unless it turns out it's them. Then they need be treated the same but it's not their MO.