You use arbitrary temps to prove at some temps it’s not as efficient. Ok? What about at the actual temps it will be operating in? We’re talking about space here. Why use 20 degC as the temperature for space?
He didn't use 20C as the temperature of space. He used the OP's example of comparing the radiative cooling effectiveness of a heat SOURCE at 90C (chosen to characterize a data center environment) and 20C (chosen to characterize the ISS/human habitable space craft).
The problem with extreme polarization in a 2 party system is that each party doesn’t police itself, doesn’t rein itself in, and when the other finally gets back in power, it pushes through awful retaliatory measures. The 2 parties are happy with this state of affairs because they’re pretty much guaranteed 50% of the time to be the one in power, in control. Vote 3rd party to break this cycle
The way voting in the US works, voting 3rd party has the same real effect as not voting at all.
If you want to build a third party, you have to start at the bottom, with local races, and work your way up. You can't do it starting with national races.
I think you have to start lower than that, with the voting system itself. I've seen it argued in several places that "first past the post" leads to only two parties.
It seems odd to me to try to redefine Y/NIMBY depending on the individual project. I wouldn’t want a sewage plant or a datacenter in my neighborhood, absolutely no one would. Why would one be NIMBY and one not?
These figures are not proof of an anti-science administration (I’m not disputing that the administration is anti-science, just disputing that this budget is evidence of that)
If you compare Biden’s FY2022 budget estimates to this budget, it matches almost exactly (Webb 175M, Hubble 85M)
what the hell are you talking about? The budget cut for Webb (i.e. the new satellite) literally from the article you are reading is 187M to 140M. If Biden's FY2022 budget was 172M, that's 189M 2026 (from inflation), so this remains a 25% cut.
Personally, I don't care because AWS and Azure are both extremely profitable without federal contracts.
XAI is the dictionary definition of a blue-chip nothingburger. Nobody wants their tax dollars going towards the bailout of an AI company that can't compete on merits alone. It's a dilution of SpaceX's valuation, if nothing else.
Ah, so your premise is SX is unprofitable without federal contracts! and that the SOTA model, which was released before this investment, can’t “compete”
I think the real underlying premise is that Elon is unhinged, cannot be trusted and just makes stuff up. Self driving Teslas were going to launch "next year" since 2017. DOGE was going to find 1-2T dollars worth of waste in our budgets. Thai rescue diver was a pedophile. etc.
For all I know, SOTA model can be a copy with some additive work on Claude or OpenAI models.
You are exactly right that the underlying premise is a dislike of Musk, who has famously made mistakes, I too am critical of all of the things you listed.
So, if a very contentious personality is involved, is there any purpose or value in pointing out seriously flawed assumptions/POV/rationale?
Another example is the excessive divisiveness in politics, what would make discussions around those topics better? In my opinion, it would be better to rein in serious factual errors, even if the errors skew towards "my side"
It's about the ideas, and the idea is bad. It would be bad if Elon Musk came up with it, it would be bad if Martin Luther wrote it down on a handkerchief on the eve of his death.
Do we want to discuss this on merits, or are we concerned that the merit of the idea might undermine... checks clipboard ...commercial LLM businesses cashing R&D checks expensed by the US taxpayer?
“The idea” is that (the only) megaconstellation sat internet provider is investing in and partnering with an AI company. On its face that seems to make sense to me. If it does not make sense, why not? The reasons you have given are irrelevant and also false.
The “taxpayer” (govt) pays SX a very low rate for launches, and gets an excellent product in return. In what way is the “taxpayer” being swindled?
That's not what I said at all. If AWS or Azure went all-in on a risky, overvalued technology, they would get extreme scrutiny from both the public and federal contractors. SpaceX is doing exactly that, and diluting their valuation in the process. You'll note that neither AWS nor Azure have made similarly risky "balls on the table" ventures.
You can argue that the dilution is good for taxpayers in the long-run (fat chance lol), or that SpaceX can survive the immediate aftermath (duh). But you cannot argue that XAI is a deserving company, because it never won a contract against it's competition. The demand is invented, simple as that.
Mind you, XAI couldn't even fund itself before the seed rounds. Both political admins will be looking at their SpaceX contracts with a renewed scrutiny, which Elon had better hope doesn't develop into a campaign for nationalizing SpaceX IP.
...who am I kidding, he was begging to become eminent domain the moment he put POTUS in his crosshairs. Au revoir, rocket man.
But the fact that EV brakes don't wear at nearly the same rate as ICE brakes still stands.
My EV6 (pretty heavy car) manual explicitly says "you should probably do some hard breaking from moderate speed to prevent corrosion on the brake discs".
Because 90+% of the time when you press the brake pedal the friction brakes aren't being used at all, it's all regen.
This thread seems like a good example of how to subtly be negative and breed cynicism.
Nitpick (see pedantic and mostly irrelevant replies to the excellent top comment.
Who cares, anyway? Whatabout all the other things that have ever happened? (see 2nd comment, 3rd comment)
More nitpicking, 4th comment
Top comment, and further down, the comments and discussion are quite good. I do wonder about how large an impact a targeted, small amount of astroturfing can accomplish. just boost/inject some cynicism and negativity into the top 2-4 comments, nothing too obvious. Just enough to poison the well a bit.
Parent comment is nearly diametrically opposed to “intellectual curiosity” and is the top comment. the one-sidedness of this site is quite a big problem. Both the community and the mods need to fight against the current here.
It's not even the one-sidedness: HN has historically had either a leftward or a rightward tilt depending on your own politics—that is, everyone on here interacts with people who disagree with them more often than they are used to.
What's changed in the last couple months is that the political discussions used to be both more isolated to specific submissions and more intellectually curious. They got intense, but enough people were interested in actually engaging with their opposition that I've had some of the most enlightening political discussions I've ever seen on here. Now the politics is everywhere, and it's straight flame bait with very little curiosity. A comment like the above would have been instantly flagged to death a few months back as both off topic and flame bait. Now it's what users want to see.
Edit: looks like either a mod or an algorithm did finally downweight this subthread!
reply