Nowadays, panels are sitting at roughly 20% and heat pumps have a coefficient of performance around 4x. If you need a battery round trip, you are right about the 70% point and you now have electricity which is more generally useful than low grade heat.

Those 40 year old decisions, as you say, have had several decades of ossification, though, so it is hard to uproot them.

And the Finns put a priority on staying warm. For normal electrical generation, they largely use wind with a growing solar fraction.

Nuclear is fine, but very expensive and very slow to deploy.

People wouldn't be rushing to shift entire markets at the observed rates if the economics were upside down. It is the soundness of the economic model that is driving the adoption even against tariffs and subversion by the current US regime.

It might be pretty easy to use overloading to get special case implementations that form SQL queries progressively until the results need to be materialized as something like a dataframe for the function code to work on.

a) increased training scale would result in highly fluent systems that would fool users into trusting untrustworthy output.

Can you possibly be claiming that this is not a common experience? Do you really need references to the legal cases which had hallucinated legal theories and citations? Or the utter slop being passed off as research papers?

b) large-scale AI would amplify bias in the source material.

The large investments nearly every frontier model development team spends on this problem is probably good enough evidence. Grok is another point of evidence. The studies showing that AI systems imitate gender bias in evaluating resumes is another. The gender bias in estimating names of people in sentences is another.

The blog actually mentions specific cases that exhibited all of these problems. They did not cite references for them, but you can use a search engine.

c) environment costs

This is widely discussed and documented. Take Xai's use of polluting turbine generators for their data center in for Collossus 2 in Mississippi as just a single example. Do you really need a reference for the environmental impact of the proposed data center in Utah that (as planned) will consume more energy than the entire state currently does?

d) training set audits are impossible.

Do you need substantiation of the inappropriate imagery in training data? The blog gives you a pretty solid reference.

... and so on ...

I suppose that it could be true that when you say "I don't see" you really meant "I didn't look at the blog". Is that why you can't see the substantiation?

It's the physics of cooling the beasts and the communication delays that make those plans ludicrous.

To turn your assertion on its head, the fact that the supporters don't seem to be able (or willing) to do the math to fact check these proposals is not an indicator that the plans will work.

As a starting point for comparison, the total power budget of the ISS is under 100kW and a single supercomputer rack dissipates about 4x that. What changes to the ISS can be made to get 100x more power and dissipate 100x more heat?

If you have a mutex on a structure, linters such as are packaged into Goland will catch oversights quite effectively.

If you are using fancier concurrency structures, you should consider channels instead.

Perhaps your name-calling is not actually as logically grounded as you think. It definitely seems to depend on unfounded leaps.

Not so many years from now, some of them will surpass you. A few years after that all (that survive to that point) will surpass you.

Does that terrify you just as much?

Who cares if it is God's book or the machine's Xeroxed copy?

Care to cite a reference to that proof?

Clearly impossible to have a system like that continue. Except for the fact that it does.