News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:xAI joins SpaceX by Veserv on Monday February 02, 2026 @05:31PM (#46862875)
You mean you operate them like Microsoft's failed submerged data center project [1]. When pointing at validating past examples you are generally supposed to point at successes.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Natick

Re:xAI joins SpaceX by dcanelhas on Monday February 02, 2026 @05:34PM (#46862942)
The opposite of down is up, so it wouldn't be completely illogical.
Re:xAI joins SpaceX by fragmede on Monday February 02, 2026 @05:52PM (#46863238)
Did we read the same Wikipedia page? It doesn't say the word "failed" anywhere on it.
Re:xAI joins SpaceX by tadfisher on Monday February 02, 2026 @06:10PM (#46863536)
> By 2024, Project Natick had been inactive for several years, though it was referenced in media as though it was ongoing. That year, Microsoft confirmed that the project was inactive and that it had no servers underwater.

I wouldn't exactly call this a success, for that matter.

Re:xAI joins SpaceX by fragmede on Tuesday February 03, 2026 @03:50AM (#46868348)
To me, failed, implies some sort of real failure, not just, "eh, won't make us enough money" a la Google/business since forever/the exec who's pet project it was moved on/had babies/was fired for unrelated reasons/some other human thing unrelated to the technical proposition.

If, like, sea-water entered and corroded the system and it blew up and ate babies, and caused Godzilla, that would be a failure. It just being not quite interesting enough to go after seems... I mean I guess it is, but on a "meh" level.

Re:xAI joins SpaceX by AlexandrB on Tuesday February 03, 2026 @01:15PM (#46874811)
"eh, won't make us enough money" would make space data centres a failure too. The whole point is to do compute more cheaply than a traditional data centre.