Because a LOT of people are missing the point:
-
@ApostateEnglishman You ask about failed SpaceX launches: turns out Falcon 9 has launched 606 times with 603 mission successes. 3 launch failures total, none in the past 11 years. It's *ridiculously* reliable compared to any of its rivals.
(Falcon 1—discontinued—was a buggy prototype; Starship is trying to get past that.)
(Tesla is not going to give us humanoid robots, not beyond showroom rigged demos targeting the investors' wallets. And I'm NOT having one of those brain implants, no way!)
My rules for brain implants:
1. I will not alpha or beta test; in fact I think waiting for v3.25 is probably for the best
2. Must run Open Source software *not using any dependencies requiring a Package Manager*
3. Must not require *any* kind of 'cloud' to operate, must work fine without a network connection, and must be locally configurable
4. You know what? Even if it meets rules 1 to 3 I'm still not too hot on the idea…
-
My rules for brain implants:
1. I will not alpha or beta test; in fact I think waiting for v3.25 is probably for the best
2. Must run Open Source software *not using any dependencies requiring a Package Manager*
3. Must not require *any* kind of 'cloud' to operate, must work fine without a network connection, and must be locally configurable
4. You know what? Even if it meets rules 1 to 3 I'm still not too hot on the idea…
NOTE: Those rules used to be much simpler. More along the lines of, "Not anything using Microsoft or Oracle software."
ETA: Insert joke about, "Blue Screen of Death."
-
Because a LOT of people are missing the point:
No, Elon Musk is NOT serious about putting a million data centres into orbit. It can't work: laws of physics say "nope".
But SpaceX is expected to go public this year.
Elon is talking up his company's future prospects in front of gullible investors because he needs a growth narrative beyond Starlink, which is already priced in. Something to justify the Starship proram beyond NASA's lunar ambitions.
So it's salesman's bullshit, lies for fools.
@cstross When Kessler syndrome happens, do I get fractional shares?
-
My rules for brain implants:
1. I will not alpha or beta test; in fact I think waiting for v3.25 is probably for the best
2. Must run Open Source software *not using any dependencies requiring a Package Manager*
3. Must not require *any* kind of 'cloud' to operate, must work fine without a network connection, and must be locally configurable
4. You know what? Even if it meets rules 1 to 3 I'm still not too hot on the idea…
@jackwilliambell @cstross @ApostateEnglishman
A few years back, Bruce Sterling was doing his thing on stage and talking about how fucked anyone with an implant would be under the DMCA and planned obsolescence.
-
Because a LOT of people are missing the point:
No, Elon Musk is NOT serious about putting a million data centres into orbit. It can't work: laws of physics say "nope".
But SpaceX is expected to go public this year.
Elon is talking up his company's future prospects in front of gullible investors because he needs a growth narrative beyond Starlink, which is already priced in. Something to justify the Starship proram beyond NASA's lunar ambitions.
So it's salesman's bullshit, lies for fools.
@cstross Data centers in orbit are the new "Solar roadways" scam.
-
@jackwilliambell @cstross @ApostateEnglishman
A few years back, Bruce Sterling was doing his thing on stage and talking about how fucked anyone with an implant would be under the DMCA and planned obsolescence.
@emma @cstross @ApostateEnglishman
And now we have proof of that on the ground with audio implants and heart defibrillators stopping working because the company went out of business.
Really? DRM should be banned from *anything* medical related for incredibly obvious reasons; although banning DRM altogether isn't a bad idea either.
-
My rules for brain implants:
1. I will not alpha or beta test; in fact I think waiting for v3.25 is probably for the best
2. Must run Open Source software *not using any dependencies requiring a Package Manager*
3. Must not require *any* kind of 'cloud' to operate, must work fine without a network connection, and must be locally configurable
4. You know what? Even if it meets rules 1 to 3 I'm still not too hot on the idea…
@jackwilliambell @cstross @ApostateEnglishman I like technology you can take off when it goes wrong.
-
My rules for brain implants:
1. I will not alpha or beta test; in fact I think waiting for v3.25 is probably for the best
2. Must run Open Source software *not using any dependencies requiring a Package Manager*
3. Must not require *any* kind of 'cloud' to operate, must work fine without a network connection, and must be locally configurable
4. You know what? Even if it meets rules 1 to 3 I'm still not too hot on the idea…
@jackwilliambell @cstross @ApostateEnglishman
We know so little about the brain's real mechanics that brain implants can't be any more sophisticated than plugging a phone into a potato.
Brain implants today are like using a railgun to crochet lace.
-
@gbargoud
The hell, I toolk this as a plot element in @bitterkarella 's latest gag?
Argh. I'm gonna hide under a rock...
@cstross @tony@bitterkarella just transcribes what's happening. Reality has lapped satire.
-
My rules for brain implants:
1. I will not alpha or beta test; in fact I think waiting for v3.25 is probably for the best
2. Must run Open Source software *not using any dependencies requiring a Package Manager*
3. Must not require *any* kind of 'cloud' to operate, must work fine without a network connection, and must be locally configurable
4. You know what? Even if it meets rules 1 to 3 I'm still not too hot on the idea…
@jackwilliambell @cstross @ApostateEnglishman I'd add to that a physical bypass. I want a switch that I can flip that will completely disable the device. This switch can't be flipped with software, and it is impossible for the device to function (think "airgap in the power supply") without the switch in the on position.
Still probably a "no" for me.
-
@jackwilliambell @cstross @ApostateEnglishman I'd add to that a physical bypass. I want a switch that I can flip that will completely disable the device. This switch can't be flipped with software, and it is impossible for the device to function (think "airgap in the power supply") without the switch in the on position.
Still probably a "no" for me.
@frog @cstross @ApostateEnglishman
Yeah, adding that to the list.
NOTE: I use a phone with physical switches for the mic, GPS, and network connections for reasons.
-
@ApostateEnglishman You ask about failed SpaceX launches: turns out Falcon 9 has launched 606 times with 603 mission successes. 3 launch failures total, none in the past 11 years. It's *ridiculously* reliable compared to any of its rivals.
(Falcon 1—discontinued—was a buggy prototype; Starship is trying to get past that.)
(Tesla is not going to give us humanoid robots, not beyond showroom rigged demos targeting the investors' wallets. And I'm NOT having one of those brain implants, no way!)
@cstross @ApostateEnglishman I would argue that it is the tireless work of engineers and not leadership that allows for his success, which, thinking about it, is true for most companies actually. -
@cstross thanks for pointing it out that clearly. I went through several articles yesterday to find out why the hell someone would think putting a data center in space would be beneficial.
And the only argument every journalist was citing besides "Sam Altman said it in a podcast" was 24/7 solar power, independent of weather. Which is not true for most lower orbits (earth's shadow), and still doesn't solve cooling, too little power, limited up/down link and maintenance problems.
So that it's just bullshit to sound futuristic to the dumbest of the dumbest makes a lot of sense. -
@jb I don't approve of capitalism occupying Earth orbit; my point was that (at least according to Manley, and what I do understand of physics and orbital mechanics) it's not implausible that what the Muskrat is doing here is actually sensible from a capitalist standpoint.
His whole existence is a grift, and he needs to be stopped, but this particular part of it seems far less of a con than (e.g.) the "cybertruck".
Space is a little more hostile than the deepest parts of the ocean. Except in one way: there's no atmosphere to block the nastiest bits of radiation out there.
Computers really do not like radiation. They like it less than DNA does, and are more sensitive to it. And the smaller the fab size of the chip is, the more sensitive it'll be to ionizing radiation.
-
Space is a little more hostile than the deepest parts of the ocean. Except in one way: there's no atmosphere to block the nastiest bits of radiation out there.
Computers really do not like radiation. They like it less than DNA does, and are more sensitive to it. And the smaller the fab size of the chip is, the more sensitive it'll be to ionizing radiation.
So, if you put a bunch of computers in orbit, ignoring the hard problems like heat, cooling, moving heat away from sensitive components, per KG fuel costs to get it in orbit, fitting the shit in to geostationary, or other high orbit.
You still have "how do you deal with equipment failures and loss of components" and "get enough up there to ensure redundancy".
I don't know if you've built a datacenter, but that's a bunch of mass to move.
@cstross -
Space is a little more hostile than the deepest parts of the ocean. Except in one way: there's no atmosphere to block the nastiest bits of radiation out there.
Computers really do not like radiation. They like it less than DNA does, and are more sensitive to it. And the smaller the fab size of the chip is, the more sensitive it'll be to ionizing radiation.
@jb Yep, Manley discusses that issue -- specifically mentioning the visible degradation of external cameras on the ISS as an example.
-
-
So, if you put a bunch of computers in orbit, ignoring the hard problems like heat, cooling, moving heat away from sensitive components, per KG fuel costs to get it in orbit, fitting the shit in to geostationary, or other high orbit.
You still have "how do you deal with equipment failures and loss of components" and "get enough up there to ensure redundancy".
I don't know if you've built a datacenter, but that's a bunch of mass to move.
@cstrossShort answer: there are also some major advantages, which right now are very much outweighed by the disadvantages.
It all depends on the pricing of space access, and whether it gets cheap enough fast enough to make this idea pay off.
-
It'd have to be as cheap as shipping a fully laden 40ft intermodal (ISO 668) container from Oakland to Shanghai before its actually economical. That's about $3000 USD for the container, not counting cargo, insurance, etc.. Max capacity is about 30500 kg.
That's getting a datacenter in orbit, securely, with cooling, radiators, shielding, power, and redundancy for under $3/kg.
That's not going to happen.
-
It'd have to be as cheap as shipping a fully laden 40ft intermodal (ISO 668) container from Oakland to Shanghai before its actually economical. That's about $3000 USD for the container, not counting cargo, insurance, etc.. Max capacity is about 30500 kg.
That's getting a datacenter in orbit, securely, with cooling, radiators, shielding, power, and redundancy for under $3/kg.
That's not going to happen.
@woozle Even then, it's not actually economical if the customers aren't willing to pay extra for the resources, which will be highly latent in a world that despises latency.
You end up with Sealand all over again, where the idea is better than the implementation ever can be.
Eventually, you have orbiting scrap, cluttering the sky, slowly decaying in orbit.
