Tech investments don't come with interest payments usually, so if interest rates go up it pulls money into government and corporate bonds which are much lower risk. Why take a gamble on new tech that might lose you everything to get 10% ROI, if you can get 6% "risk free" in bonds?

> Walt Disney was born on December 5, 1901, at 1249 Tripp Avenue in the Hermosa neighborhood of Chicago, Illinois, United States. He was the fourth son of Elias Disney, who was born in the Province of Canada to Anglo-Irish parents, and Flora (née Call), an American of German and English descent

There's a whole article written about this guy because he's such a bizarre figure. Nobody can figure out where he gets his money or influence, he constantly changes the names of his organizations and it's unclear who works for or funds him. He has previously misrepresented his orgs as just grassroots activism yet they never identified who their activists are. Eventually investigative journalists discovered they were all Labour and Democrat party operatives, and it took several years for Ahmed to even admit he had any connection to these groups.

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/censorship-...

Ahmed operates in the USA as well and has been instrumental in organizing advertiser boycotts of numerous different organizations, both on the left and right. The only consistent theme is he targets anyone outside the establishment consensus.

The motive underlying all of this stuff is that Britain's governing class has created a catastrophic mess and doesn't know what to do about it, so they grab onto the only idea they have: stop anyone talking about what's happening. They plan to implement the Soviet/Chinese approach in which they'll censor hard enough that reality itself stops mattering. It's the Tiananmen Square problem but for Britain. Nobody will riot when an "asylum seeker" gouges out their neighbour's eyeballs and then tries to behead them with a kitchen knife, if the only source of information anyone has is the BBC and friendly social networks where resharing the BBC is the only action allowed. And if they control all information then they can restore the cozy historical norm of two parties that agree on all the things that matter, with nobody else able to organize.

They had basically managed this from 2015 up until Elon bought X and uncensored it, which is why they're not going to rest until they have Musk in prison and/or x.com blocked by ISPs along with every VPN service that allows a bypass. The alternative would be to initiate a Gorbachev/Deng Xiaoping style reformation in which they admit their worldview is built on false beliefs with terrifyingly violent consequences.

    # EARTH IS FULL

• USA, Australia. The electricity infrastructure has already bottlenecked and some datacenters like Colossus are being forced to build their own power plants, but that's also bottlenecked on gas turbine capacity. Hacks like recycling jet turbines only squeeze a bit more out. Terrestrial solar can't be used to escape this problem because you need the clusters to run at night too.

• Europe. Deindustrialized, EU Commission is anti AI, very expensive power, grid also bottlenecked. Forget it.

• Middle East. Had some datacenters until they got blown up by Iran.

• China. Got power but bottlenecked by trade sanctions. Might well do a big buildout when Ascend starts to be competitive, but Chinese demand is likely to absorb it.

• Latin America, Africa, south-east Asia, etc: bottlenecked by political stability, not pro-business enough, etc.

In space you don't need gas turbines because solar can be 24/7, political risks aren't there, you aren't bottlenecked by grid capacity. Even if it costs more to put stuff in space that doesn't matter if space is the only place you can put stuff.

    # INFERENCE NOT TRAINING

Space radiation isn't necessarily a problem. Bit flips can be tolerate to quite a high degree for inferencing because models can recover from corruptions in the activation stream or even some bad tokens.

    # COOLING

    # COST

The real wild card is if there's enough demand for a 'good enough' model that it's predicted to last the lifetime of the satellite. In that case the weights could be fabbed directly into the chips like Taalas does, and so the energy consumption would be far lower.

    # BUSINESS CASE

What's especially confounding is that the mere existence of orbital inferencing might actually create that outcome, because politicians would find it much easier to squash datacenter / power projects to please activists if there is a genuine alternative!

Note: I'm not invested in SpaceX.

At most a decentralized effort could contribute a little bit to some bigger centralized effort by doing inference and sandboxed CPU work. Modern model training isn't just backprop, it's got a huge and growing CPU and inferencing component too, which doesn't require intense inter-node communication. For instance, doing RL rollouts for agentic coding requires a lot of plain old inferencing and sandboxed containers for the models to practice in. The final results are just a set of rollouts and scores that can be uploaded back to a central datacenter for GRPO to adjust the weights (relatively cheap). But then, of course, you'd have to stick to models small enough to fit on people's computers so it'd never be competitive.

There aren't other comments discussing this possibility at the moment, but you don't have to take the token predicted as most likely (greedy decoding). Most decoding strategies do something else which is where settings like temperature come in. So if you want the model to "think harder" you can track whether the current tokens are thinking or answer - in OpenAI's system that's called a channel - and then if you're in a thinking block you might get a model output whose top three predictions are:

    60% <|channel=answer|>
    10% Wait, 
    5%  . The
    [...]

2022 had a catchup effect from COVID. Nonetheless exports and imports are both higher than in the 2010s, exports have been rising since 2023 and exports to the EU are currently increasing, not decreasing:

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/exports

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/imports

> Exports in the UK rose 0.2% month-on-month to £79.13 billion in March 2026 from £78.98 billion in February. Goods exports edged up 0.1% to £32.35 billion, driven by higher shipments to the EU (3.9%), while those to non-EU countries remained relatively unchanged.

The further we get from the actual date of leaving the less any specific trend can be argued to be caused by it though. It's especially tricky because lockdown impact was so massive it drowned out everything. But Brexit was years ago. None of the predicted economic disasters came true which is why its critics are reduced to playing with Excel.

The national debt is certainly very bad, but that's because the country elected a very left wing government. It's not related to Brexit.

Edit: Nevermind, I'll be more direct.

What you linked to isn't the European Council that has elected heads of state in it. It's the votes of the Council of the European Union. Yes, this naming choice is astoundingly stupid, and because it's never been fixed despite many decades of confusion there are many who speculate the confusion is deliberate. It creates exactly the kind of false appearance of democracy that's tripped you up here.

The European Council, the one with Macron, Merz, etc in it, doesn't publish anything about their decision making process. There probably aren't votes. They don't approve or disapprove laws, either. Officially they decide things by consensus. Unofficially nobody knows because they all swear each other to secrecy.

The laws are approved by the Council of the European Union who are, theoretically, still ministers from the different governments i.e. a vote on a trade law would have trade ministers. In reality, that's not how it works either. You can easily verify it. Here's a random law that got approved recently by the 'democratic' parts of the system, on "the welfare of dogs and cats and their traceability":

https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-9729-2026-I...

Obvious questions one might ask include:

1. Why does dog welfare have to be imposed on members via transnational law they can't change?

2. Why are nearly all the votes of the Council passing with 95%+ support, all the time? Aren't they supposed to be from different political parties in different countries?

3. Is it really plausible that elected trade ministers from all over Europe travelled somewhere, met and had a meaningful debate about dog welfare?

The answers are respectively:

1. It doesn't and shouldn't.

2. Because they aren't real votes.

3. https://agenceurope.eu/en/bulletin/article/13873/27/eu-counc... says "The EU Council adopted the regulation ... without debate." (note the same naming confusion in the EU's own websites - they use "EU Council" to mean the body that approves laws, which isn't the body made up of heads of state that calls itself the European Council).

This law was waved through by some low level civil servants on behalf of the ministers. Probably neither group even read it. As is true for almost all EU law: most of the work is done by lobbyists.

So, when people tell you the EU is a democracy because of the Council, think about that. Or just ask them which council they mean, because they probably don't know themselves. Fun fact: there's also the Council of Europe which isn't connected to the EU at all.

Or what are you trying to argue here? You expected tax pounds to have colours, that there was some separate bank account labelled "EU funds"?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48473246

The actual data doesn't support any of these estimates.

Note the response of the guy I was arguing with. Faced with the reality that the sources he/she trusted are lying, they rejected the honest source they asked for because of "bias". This kind of motivated reasoning is everywhere in this debate. Quite annoying.