Burden of proof is on Astrology claiming to be real.
smiletolerantly
joined 2 years ago
- AI bad
- Astrology 100% superstitious bullshit
Yeah. Out of curiosity though, how far did you get into it?
(Not that it gets better in this regard or anything)
Well, no. Hopefully NOT the same shit.
Yeah, like 3-4x/week.
This includes things like train tickets, because I refuse to have to have my phone with me.
Sheet music, shopping list, letters to doctors/government offices/...
:(
But then why URL say online
Oh shit, that's just begging to be combined with something like Nepenthes!
LMFAO
yeah that's about as hilarious an article as I expected from an outlet called "btcpolicy"
Stop moving the goal post. To process satellite images, you need way, waaaaay, waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay less compute than for AI datacenters. We are not arguing about image processing for a single satellite. (Which is still jot a great idea, ideally you'd want to improve throughput instead since you still want the raw images for people to work with, just faster, no?)
No, what you were talking about were data enters for AI (no, you didn't say AI, but that's what everyone on Lemmy says is a bad idea in space, and you were referring to everyone on Lemmy, so, we are talking about AI data enters in space).
- putting them in space doesn't make them faster.
- putting them in space is incredibly expensive
- cooling them in space is way harder than on earth; radiating heat away is a function of the surface area of the cooling modules, and you cannot escape that
- maintenance (remember - things fail) is way harder and astronomically expensive and slow
- and, thanks for reminding me, sending AI output to and from is subject to the same slowness as for images from telescopes
Sorry, "data-center in space" is a stupid idea. Musk yaps about it because a) he's an idiot and b) enough investors fell for it
Datacenters in space are a supremely stupid idea.
I know that this makes me fit exactly with what you were describing; indeed I'm not rejecting your premise, I just think you've chosen a hilariously bad example to demonstrate it.
I just wish fish would accept standard bash syntax in addition.
Like, if you can warn me that "this is not how we set vars in fish, do this instead!" then you could also just, you know, do it.