Your points: "Mountaintop" is how comms is easier in space vs on earth. Starlink already serves many rural areas simply b/c it is easier to go to/from space in some places than "running a cable". "Latency is nowhere near as good as on earth" is just false. "Mountaintop" is why. But more broadly, my most recent vacation cabin has higher latency than starlink offers. Case closed I guess?

And one more on latency: I was referring to latency in areas of interest far from USA mountaintops / USA in general. You might want to peruse the DARPA programs on low latency in-situ, closed loop comms for in theater (sometimes space based) compute. Something close to the action.

Power: "Mountaintop" is how space has a better power case than earth. Not all of earth. Mountaintop earth. top level comment was talking about a wind turbine on a mountaintop. That's an attempt at 24h power which is very likely strictly worse.

You can step back and make larger arguments, but this thread is narrower.

"Space is more regulated than Earth". Yes, again, you're talking about wider counts of regulation. Just go look around at the pushback to data centers and you'll see some of the case for DC in space. The path to getting equipment into space is clean - just get permits and launch same as SPX does for starlink. The path to building a data center on a mountaintop probably encounters at least some non-paperwork pushback that's likely to trip big political fights. That's it. Are there a lot of mountaintops that are sufficiently cold to warrant "cooling" arguments that are not part of large state/federal parks?

So going back to the thread - if you believe that a mountaintop datacenter is a counter example to the feasibility of a space-based data center, then I think you're making a category error on some of the above criteria. Your comments don't dissuade me at all about that because they don't address either side of that argument.

But space based dc accomplish something that mountaintop dc do not. The different list of benefits/tradeoffs are why space DC are proposed and mountaintop ones are not. It's a difference of kind, not degree. It's not a meaningful experiment to just try to build DC in hard places and then we can finally validate space.

Stated benefits in particular:

- Power available 24/7 for "free"

- coms w/o interruption using existing infra

- Rideshare (SPX can build out capacity while other lifts pay some of the bill for lift)

- Nonregulation

- Very low latency to "places of interest far from USA mountains"

And no, I do not believe that mountaintop automatically satisfies these benefits in a smooth way such that mountaintop is a meaningful stepping stone towards space.

I usually end Legend after the mannequin trap, and end Sunshine after the transit of mercury.

https://croissanthology.com/earring

That said, sometimes low-trust environments are the issue, not PRs. In a higher trust environment, PR review is a helpful thing you usually desire, not dread.

It's just gonna do what we expect it to!

Now they'll probably get someone on discount, because our salaries are going to tank due to evaporating demand, but I sincerely doubt it'll be zero-d demand.

What I expect is a 3D printer moment - tons and tons of homebrew / shareware style software coming out, an explosion of boutique code.

I also expect a CNC machine moment - vastly reduced demand for hands-on specialists, and more babysitting of automted processes. But it's those machinists who got those jobs.

We could be looking at a long term suppression (~80% reduction?) in demand though until economic growth produces enough demand to employ ~50M software engineers again, if ever. The cliff is unlikely, I'd guess the unregretted loss will be replaced by AI productivity every year, and some portion of growth will, too.

I also guess that all the AI companies can become massively successful without causing much unemployment just by following Claude's model - charge a certain tangible % of a salary for assisting the worker. https://jodavaho.io/posts/ai-jobpocolypse.html

But the "Written in rust" stuff comes with so much falsehood baggage about automatic best-in-class performance, automatic perfect safety, automatic rigor, that it is detrimental to just say "written in rust" and not provide a more nuanced statement about why that's good (or just drop it as a headline item!). You might not agree because you can single out one automatic benefit of rust b/c of Cargo (not rust), but even that is suspect b/c Rust can ship with dynamic libraries if configured to do so.

In this case, the credibility and benefits are clearer if they said "Static binary". This is all just context. If you see a benefit to that headline, that's ok.

A park where anything goes ... because sentry robots keep the peace. When the robots break, things get scary quickly.

I've become convinced that a well-governed society is the perfect foundation for a limited anarchist commune set up on property legally purchased. Libertarian, essentially. Or Amish.

I think a _lot_ about stock trading a profession vs algorithmic trading. It was brutal - suicides, many pivoting out to doing car dealership-style work. Probably a 1/10 or 1/20 survivor rate every couple years, with almost all of it a very painful five year period.

I feel that only works so long. Without new emerging areas offering high wages and decent cost of living, the new grads look at the old areas like SF (no hate just e.g.) and see a financial bridge too far and a tight job market anyway.

If you curve the students after the test, you are applying subjective edits to the graded performance just so the distribution of grades matches the measure of your tests effectiveness. That's just hacking the metric.

Further, even if you believe that tests should differentiate mastery (not students), your test should have teased out the differences or given you enough confidence to provide As to everyone who mastered the material - which should be absolutely possible! There's no a priori reason that all students cannot absolutely get the same grade, except for the a priori assumption that grades are for differentiation of students themselves (this year's A means this is the best student of this year), vs indicating mastery (all students absolutely crushed this exam).

You can dock points for style, or unnecessary struggle, or whatever subjective metric you want, but fudging the grades based on vibes to fit a prior-assumed distribution is just kinda "test effectiveness laundering"