papasquat's recent activity
-
Comment on The internet wasn't built for live sports in ~tech
-
Comment on SpaceX is acquiring xAI in ~space
papasquat Link ParentAlso, xAI is absolutely hemmoraging money with no path to profitability in sight. If he takes it public again, he can use his legendary bullshitting skills to get retail shareholders to burden a...Also, xAI is absolutely hemmoraging money with no path to profitability in sight. If he takes it public again, he can use his legendary bullshitting skills to get retail shareholders to burden a lot of that risk like they do with Tesla. Then he doesn't actually have to deliver good products via either SpaceX or X anymore.
He just has to string people along to pump the share price when he wants to, which is the main thing he's good at.
-
Comment on SpaceX is acquiring xAI in ~space
papasquat Link ParentFor comparison, the ISS, the biggest and most expensive space construction project in human history by far, requring dozens of countries decades to build and over $120 billion dollars generates......Electricity. A single H100 GPU, excluding the rest of the server, pulls 700W. Lets just say a single server is still a 1kW spec heater. 42 high, 100 racks = 4200kW, and that's ignoring the larger cost of cooling (each of those 100 racks needs about a half dozen window AC units worth of cooling on earth, and it's harder to cool things in space). 1kW of solar generation is about 2 square meters of space, so we're talking kilometers...
For comparison, the ISS, the biggest and most expensive space construction project in human history by far, requring dozens of countries decades to build and over $120 billion dollars generates... 120kw.
I could buy a generator for $50,000 that can supply that, or solar panels here on earth for about $200,000. That's 150 GPUs, ignoring cooling. Large AI data centers run hundreds of thousands of them.
-
Comment on SpaceX is acquiring xAI in ~space
papasquat Link ParentNo ones backyard is in the middle of the Mojave, which would be a way cheaper and easier place to build data centers. Most large scale data centers are already in the middle of nowhere, and if...No ones backyard is in the middle of the Mojave, which would be a way cheaper and easier place to build data centers. Most large scale data centers are already in the middle of nowhere, and if NIMBY opposition grew, which is entirely reasonable, they would move even further to the middle of nowhere. The US has an absolutely insane amount of land area that's available.
-
Comment on SpaceX is acquiring xAI in ~space
papasquat Link ParentSattelites worked before SpaceX launched them. They already knew they worked, and we knew how to launch them. They also launch them because there are no feasibile alternatives to provide worldwide...Sattelites worked before SpaceX launched them. They already knew they worked, and we knew how to launch them.
They also launch them because there are no feasibile alternatives to provide worldwide radio coverage. Google tried using balloons, terrestrial cell providers use towers, but all of those have significant drawbacks compared to sattelites if your goal is covering the entire world.
Data centers are not in the same situation. No one has built a data center in space before. We have good alternatives to putting them in space. There aren't significant constraints to building them on earth, and there a lot of contraints to putting them into space (as there is for putting anything into space).
There also aren't any significant advantages to putting them in space. Yes, they use a lot of power on earth. They'd use a lot of power in space too though. The power requirements don't magically go away because they're in space. Yes, solar panels are a lot more efficient in space, but solar panels are extremely cheap now. Launching them into space is not. Any efficiency gains are totally wiped out by that fact, and that would be the only possible advantage.
It's really a nonsensical idea.
-
Comment on SpaceX is acquiring xAI in ~space
papasquat Link ParentOne thing that the last 20 years of investors in Musk's companies should have shown us, it's that shareholders are very, very stupid. It's extremely easy for Musk to trick them by invoking sci fi...One thing that the last 20 years of investors in Musk's companies should have shown us, it's that shareholders are very, very stupid. It's extremely easy for Musk to trick them by invoking sci fi ideas with no feasibility to drum up excitement.
He drummed up investment in SpaceX by promising crewed mars missions by 2024. He drummed up investment in Tesla by promising self driving in 2014.
He's a proven liar who consistently makes things up to boost stock prices to his advantage and people keep falling for it.
Data centers in space is not only an uninformed gamble, it's a completely unworkable idea from a technical standpoint, let alone an economic standpoint.
It would literally make more sense to invest in a company that promises to build factories at the bottom of the ocean, or farms in Antarctica.
-
Comment on US judge allows last of five offshore wind projects halted by Donald Trump to proceed in ~enviro
papasquat LinkOf all of modern conservatisms baffling, harmful, ignorant positions, the hate for renewable energy is the most baffling to me by far. Even if we were to ignore the absolutely gargantuan amount of...Of all of modern conservatisms baffling, harmful, ignorant positions, the hate for renewable energy is the most baffling to me by far.
Even if we were to ignore the absolutely gargantuan amount of evidence supporting the idea that CO2 emissions will result in massive economic and quality of life impacts and pretend climate change isn't real, there are so many other advantages.
It's now the cheapest type of energy production there is, even including bundling battery storage with it. It makes sense, because it doesn't require labor intensive prospecting, fracking, drilling, and transportation like fossil fuel extraction does. It also doesn't have the problem of fossil fuel extraction where each unit of energy extracted makes the next unit of energy more difficult and expensive to extract, since decisions on where to extract fossil fuels are made based on how cheap it is, so after that site is depleted, the next site available is more expensive.
It reduces reliance of foreign powers for energy, because we have enough land in the US to produce all of the energy we could conceivably need for hundreds of years to come, and that energy never runs out. It's literally given to us for free for millions of years.
It seems like such an absolute no brainer, and I constantly scratch my head at why anyone, but especially conservatives would never oppose it. It's literally the free market choosing the most efficient option. It can be completely manufactured, controlled, and maintained within the US, and it preserves our natural resources.
It seems like just by a sheer flip of the coin that they've taken a lot of money from fossil fuel interests and so this has just become their policy position, divorced of any actual semblance to what they preport to believe in.
We can, and do have a thriving manufacturing industry based on renewables in the US. It could be even stronger, and actually have a chance of returning some of those manufacturing jobs that Republicans keep complaining that are going to China, because gigantic turbine blades are some of the few things that might make economic sense to not ship across the ocean and instead build in place if you can help it.
It always makes me confused when conservatives try to contort themselves into knots to reconcile their stance on that one.
-
Comment on I let my wife have an affair. Do I have to console her now that it’s over? in ~life
papasquat Link ParentHonestly, this reminds me of my own "traditional" marriage. Except I don't not talk to my friends and family with problems out of shame. I don't talk to them because I don't want to taint their...A lot of "traditional" marriage types have nobody at all to talk about when things go wrong, and are motivated by shame to hide them very hard from closest friends and family, adding additional stress and barriers to healing.
Honestly, this reminds me of my own "traditional" marriage. Except I don't not talk to my friends and family with problems out of shame. I don't talk to them because I don't want to taint their perception of my wife. I think that's very common.
I love my wife, and I love spending time with her, and we generally communicate well and have very few problems. We do have minor problems now and then though, like every couple. If I told my parents or my sister when those problems came up, or when my wife does things that annoy me, those problems will color their perceptions of her forever.
I know this from experience. If I bring up one time that it annoys me when a girlfriend leaves her clothes on my side of the bed, for years it became "Oh, you must be busy cleaning up after her because of how messy she is".
That becomes one of her main defining character traits forever in their minds. I'd rather not deal with that perception and having to correct people about it, so to the outside world, my wife is and will always be a perfect angel who doesn't do any wrong.
It does leave a gap for who to actually talk to about stuff though.
-
Comment on I let my wife have an affair. Do I have to console her now that it’s over? in ~life
papasquat Link ParentI don't see how this possibly could have ended any other way. If you cheat, "actually, I think I'm non monogamous" is a complete cop out. You've failed to live up to an agreement you had with your...I don't see how this possibly could have ended any other way.
If you cheat, "actually, I think I'm non monogamous" is a complete cop out. You've failed to live up to an agreement you had with your significant other, and there's no way to slice it other than an extreme betrayal. I'd argue that non monogamy started that way is virtually always coerced.
I think there are people for whom non monogamy can work well, but I think they're an extreme subset ot the population. Just because you can, on a rational, logical level reason that there's nothing morally wrong with two people mutually deciding they they want to have sex with other people does not mean you're compatible with that lifestyle.
I think the mistake that people make with this stuff is that they look at their marriage, they look at the fact that they can't have sex with other people then go "I like this marriage, except I can't have sex with other people. It'd be even better if I could!"
It's so much more complex than that though. There are so many additional problems and struggles that opening up a relationship brings that you need to weigh. There's a reason why monogamy is the default relationship status, and it's not solely because of oppressive religious mores like a lot of ENM people claim.
When considering this stuff, a lot of people need to look at their relationships and say to themselves "this is great, and that's good enough" instead of "...but it could be even greater!!!".
-
Comment on Amazon’s promotion of ‘Melania’ has critics questioning its motives (Amazon has spent 35M on marketing on top of its 40M budget) in ~movies
papasquat Link ParentNitpicky, but it's not millionaires. It's billionaires. Most working professionals above the age of 50 or so are millionaires. The bulk of millionaires are now solidly middle class. It's not until...Nitpicky, but it's not millionaires. It's billionaires.
Most working professionals above the age of 50 or so are millionaires. The bulk of millionaires are now solidly middle class. It's not until you get to tens or hundreds of millions that you pass the threshold to upper class, and you enter a type of person that has solely focused on the accumulation of wealth above all other considerations.
A mid level manager at a f500, an engineer, and most lawyers are millionaires by middle age though. Doctors, dentists, lawyers at big firms, software people that got in at the right time, and so on are likely millionaires by their 30s/40s. It's one in ten adults in the US, so chances are if you pick out someone on the street who is older than 50, and they've worked their whole lives in a professional career, they're a millionaire.
Inflation is a bitch.
-
Comment on Microsoft gave FBI keys to unlock encrypted data in ~society
papasquat LinkHonestly, this isn't shocking or surprising and doesn't trigger any righteous outrage in me at all, despite being very pro privacy. Companies are required to hand over info on their users if they...Honestly, this isn't shocking or surprising and doesn't trigger any righteous outrage in me at all, despite being very pro privacy.
Companies are required to hand over info on their users if they receive a court order to do so. I don't think I have any issue with that. If someone is being investigated for murder or child exploitation or mass terrorism, I think the government should be allowed, with a formal process requiring a warrant from a judge, to be able to seize that data, just like I think they should be allowed to enter someone's house and search the premise.
I don't think that compaines should be compelled to build features that would compromise the security of their products to allow the government to do that though.
I don't see any way that Microsoft could simultaneously back up people's recovery keys so that they're able to hand them over to users on request while also not allowing themselves access to that key. You could end to end encrypt them... But then you just have a new key the user needs to remember. Not very helpful.
-
Comment on San Francisco parents are letting teens ride in Waymos without an adult in ~transport
papasquat Link ParentOf course. If cars and trucks didn't exist, virtually no one would ever die on bicycles. That distinction doesn't really matter that much if you're a parent doing the risk calculus of letting your...But as the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety points out, essentially all cycling fatalities are from crashes involving a motor vehicle
Of course. If cars and trucks didn't exist, virtually no one would ever die on bicycles.
That distinction doesn't really matter that much if you're a parent doing the risk calculus of letting your kids take a waymo across town versus ride their bike though.
-
Comment on San Francisco parents are letting teens ride in Waymos without an adult in ~transport
papasquat Link ParentPer capita here means per person in the US, not per user of that transport mode.Per capita here means per person in the US, not per user of that transport mode.
-
Comment on San Francisco parents are letting teens ride in Waymos without an adult in ~transport
papasquat Link ParentThat statistic is not meaningful. Less than 1 million people commute via bicycle in the US, versus 124 million via car. So yeah, more people die driving cars than riding a bike, because more...That statistic is not meaningful. Less than 1 million people commute via bicycle in the US, versus 124 million via car. So yeah, more people die driving cars than riding a bike, because more people drive cars regularly than ride bikes.
But 891 people died riding bikes in 2020 versus 38,824 in cars, meaning per amount of people regularly using that mode of transportion, bikes are actually more dangerous.
If it were just about raw numbers of people killed, knife juggling would be safer than both.
-
Comment on San Francisco parents are letting teens ride in Waymos without an adult in ~transport
papasquat Link ParentCycling is not extremely safe in a lot of places in the US. Around me, to get anywhere, I'd have to ride on a bike lane in between the right lane and a ton of turning lanes on a very busy stroad...Cycling is not extremely safe in a lot of places in the US. Around me, to get anywhere, I'd have to ride on a bike lane in between the right lane and a ton of turning lanes on a very busy stroad where people don't do a great job paying attention or looking for cyclists. It's so dangerous that I'm surprised the city even bothered paining the bike lanes, and the only bikes I've ever seen near that road is on the sidewalk. There's no way in hell I'd be comfortable letting my kids ride bikes there.
Lots of people die by getting hit by cars riding bikes in places like that.
-
Comment on US immigration officers assert sweeping power to enter homes without a judge’s warrant, memo says in ~society
papasquat Link ParentLegal and financial responsibility of the child falls to the other parent, or if the other parent isn't willing or able to be responsible, the state. There's no change there, and not wanting to be...Legal and financial responsibility of the child falls to the other parent, or if the other parent isn't willing or able to be responsible, the state. There's no change there, and not wanting to be responsible for a child isn't really an argument for abortion. Men are already financially responsible for kids they conceive, whether they want to be or not.
In a world where we can magically teleport a fetus from a womb and finish it's gestation without any risk or ill effects, I doubt severe abnormalities would be much of a thing, but I think medical experts could make that determination on a case by case basis, just like parents do now.
In cases of rape, yeah, it could potentially be traumatic? Typically the trauma from being forced to carry a rapists baby is use of your body against your will though. If getting a fetus out of your body is as quick, painless, and risk free as an abortion, we've avoided the most traumatic part.
It doesn't demand a woman undergo a medical procedure, it gives her the choice to either continue or terminate her pregnancy. The same choice she has now. I'm a firm believer in the concept that one person's rights end where another's begin, and I view the strongest argument for abortion being legal as women having full dominion of their own bodies. The fetus isn't their body. So they have the right to demand the fetus stop using their body, but not the right to unilaterally determine what happens to the fetus.
Right now, we lack the technology to preserve the lives of fetuses in a low risk, quick way. If we did though? I can't possibly see a moral argument to allow a mother to determine whether her fetus lives or dies.
Once you start allowing that, you start inviting all other nasty consequences as a result. For instance, why does the mother get the sole choice of whether to decide whether a pregnancy goes through or not? Fathers have just as many parental rights. If it's an issue of parents having dominion over their fetuses, it's as much the father's fetus as the mothers, despite it being dependent on the mother's body. It doesn't morally compute to me that just because someone conceived a fetus, they get to do literally whatever they want to it until it's born.
It makes a lot more sense to allow women to have full dominion over their bodies, but no one else's (including one that's not yet born).
-
Comment on US immigration officers assert sweeping power to enter homes without a judge’s warrant, memo says in ~society
papasquat Link ParentIt's not that we don't want to, it's that DHS isn't seeking them. They're asserting that they can go into anyone's house they want if they determine they need to, and a judge doesn't even need to...I'm at a loss as to why we wouldn't want to effect that removal immediately, by issuing such a judicial warrant.
It's not that we don't want to, it's that DHS isn't seeking them. They're asserting that they can go into anyone's house they want if they determine they need to, and a judge doesn't even need to review it.
This is a pretty obvious fourth amendment violation. Even if you go with the theory that noncitizens aren't protected by the constitution (they are), there's no guaranteeing that they're not invading citizen's privacy as well. Lots of illegal immigrants live with us citizens. Law enforcement agencies also make mistakes on a regular basis.
Putting aside the legality for a moment, I don't want to live in a world where ICE can legally bust my door down because they think an illegal immigrant lives at my house without a judge even granting a warrant.
-
Comment on US immigration officers assert sweeping power to enter homes without a judge’s warrant, memo says in ~society
papasquat Link ParentI agree. ICE's current strategy is deeply unpopular everywhere except the white house. The general populace doesn't like it, the courts don't like it, and Congress doesn't like it. No one truly...I agree. ICE's current strategy is deeply unpopular everywhere except the white house. The general populace doesn't like it, the courts don't like it, and Congress doesn't like it. No one truly puts a stop to it out of fear of the president right now, but the administration is somewhat tempered by the fact that there is a line, even if it has been pushed so far beyond the norm.
If we start seeing armed resistance to enforcement actions, Congress and the courts will start signaling to trump that the already very slack leash has been dropped. Renee Goode was an attempt at manufacturing that resistance, but she was an unarmed middle aged woman. No one is buying that narrative.
If you have a family holed up with assault rifles though, Trump suddenly gets a boogey man and Congress gets to enthusiastically support this stuff without fear of their constituents labeling them as Nazis.
It would make all of this so much worse.
-
Comment on US immigration officers assert sweeping power to enter homes without a judge’s warrant, memo says in ~society
papasquat Link ParentYeah, this is the strongest argument for abortion, and the only logically consistent one that makes sense to me. Downplaying a fetus as "not human life" or arguing the minutea of when life begins...Yeah, this is the strongest argument for abortion, and the only logically consistent one that makes sense to me. Downplaying a fetus as "not human life" or arguing the minutea of when life begins is just an argument of semantics that goes nowhere.
Ultimately it comes down to the fact that people shouldn't be obliged to use their body in ways they don't agree with. I shouldn't be forced to give a blood donation if I don't want to, I shouldnt be forced to take a vaccine I don't want, and I shouldn't be forced to carry a child against my will.
The correlary to that is that if there were a risk free, easy to access, safe way to remove a fetus from a woman's body and still keep it alive and viable, I would be 100% ok with abortion being made illegal across the board. We're not even close to that existing, and the safest way to terminate a pregnancy is, and will remain for the foreseeable future to be abortion, so it's completely unethical to make it illegal.
-
Comment on US immigration officers assert sweeping power to enter homes without a judge’s warrant, memo says in ~society
papasquat LinkThe whole thing that irritates me about the way conservatives frame these abuses is the rhetorical high ground they operate from. I, and many other left leaning people don't support illegal...The whole thing that irritates me about the way conservatives frame these abuses is the rhetorical high ground they operate from.
I, and many other left leaning people don't support illegal immigration. I think people should be deported if they're here illegally. There are about a billion caveats to go along with that though. Such as: we need to massively expand and make the legal immigration process much easier to interact with. Asylum should be as speedy and painless of a process as possible. We should NOT be funding a paramilitary gestapo force to abduct people from the street and whisked off to God knows where in the middle of the night. Illegal immigration is a crime, but it's a crime like jaywalking is a crime, or speeding on an empty freeway is a crime; that is, it's almost always victimless, and is only really a crime because we'd rather people use the legal route.
It's impossible to bring those caveats up with a conservative though. To them it's either you don't support illegal immigration, and thus how ICE is operating is good, or you do support illegal immigration, and that means you want people to come into the country whenever they want, not pay taxes, leave our borders completely open, and fund free social services for anyone who wants them.
Trump so effectively ran on immigration because he realized that that nuance does not exist in the argument. It's immigrants = bad. Period. End of story. If you get them out of the country, you're doing a good job. If you don't, you're doing a bad job. No other factors or nuance enter into the conversation.
It's one of those issues that is so frustrating to talk about with the right because of that.
The two use cases I can think of for low latency, wide distribution video is sports betting, and streamer reactions.
I'm scratching my head to think of anything else where it might be relevant. Maybe new years eve so that when the ball drops on TV it's not a minute after everyone on my street shoots off fireworks?
There are definitely a lot of legitimate use cases for low latency over the internet, but those usually are to one person or small group of people and can be achieved more or less with current technology in so far as physics allow. The issue is scaling that up.