What if the CEO of that one will come along and notice all the fat stacks of money he's leaving on the table by not advertising to all of those rich contrarians?

I have a hunch that the order of the day within big tech is to let go of anyone they can. As long as they provide a reason, it's one less headcount that needs to be laid off in the next round.

Even if the criminals don't themselves consider the presence of cameras, the cameras likely ensure they will not have freedom for too much longer.

It's called incarceration.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48435079

Points: 3

# Comments: 1

1. You assume that the recent change is that we are close to building in space, but actually what's changed is that it's becoming clearer what might be commercially useful to build in space. Not so long ago, the best idea for commercializing space was satellites taking photos of Earth, or somehow making spacecraft for mining asteroids. Then Starlink started, and next up will be energy-intensive but high-latency distributed compute, which suits AI training well. A lot of the "exactly how" might still need to be figured out along the way, but it likely will get figured out.

2. You're assuming a space-based data center would look the same as an Earth-based data center. It definitely won't. It probably looks more like a larger scale Starlink, but with much bigger satellites due to the need for giant radiators.

3. You're assuming that different technologies (space DCs vs AVs) will progress in lock step with each other. Definitely not the case. For example, we can get wireless internet from space already, but we still don't have a robot that can give someone a haircut? The tech tree branches are mostly separate, and some explored a lot more than others.

4. Insane complexity is already something that many types of technology require. It does not preclude those things from being explored.

He might not specifically lie, but puts such a negative spin on anything Elon-related that the overall result is essentially a lie.

And what's being discussed here is what the better implementation of option 3 is.

My point is that if you're going with one of the possible implementations of option 3, then 22GB per browser is objectively a lot better than 22GB per website.

The options are:

1. 22GB per website

2. 22GB per browser

3. 0GB / No AI capabilities

By having this in Chrome they are simply ensuring that option 2 replaces option 1. You still have option 3.

If it turns out useful enough I'm sure browsers will just start including it as (perhaps optional?) part of installation.

Well, Musk v OpenAI kicks off in one week from now with the objective of forcing them back to their roots. A jury will be deciding whether a nonprofit accepting $50m - $100m of donations and then discarding their mission for an IPO is OK or not. Should be interesting.

Designs have been settling on a local maxima. If you are aware of a better hill to be climbed, please do let everyone know.

Disappointing if you compare it to anything else from 2026, but fairly impressive for something that can run locally at an OK speed.