thegrim33
thegrim33 on Hacker News
>> Industry sockpuppets often like to push statistics about closed-loop data centers
>> So I'm going make my own slew of claims, yet provide absolutely zero sources for said claims, I'll just present my opinions as if they're known fact
Well, you surely convinced me.
Ah yes, the good 'ol "link to an article as proof of my claims, the article then contains multiple links to proof of the article's claims, and the multiple links, when followed, all end up leading to 404 pages with no content." Well, that convinces me.
Ah, another post from this journalist, claiming that a company investing billions of dollars in this, literally designing their own chips for it, that already has experience designing and operating tens of thousands of bespoke satellites, just simply didn't think to figure out how to power/cool them. Surely this journalist, with no engineering degree, that has never worked any job in their entire life other than writing opinion pieces and tech reviews, has this all figured out better than the company does.
It's so interesting to me that someone who, by their profile, is supposedly the founder of some critical resources, national security, company, spends their time by going on HackerNews and writing shitpost comments about their hate for things/people/companies. Really? That's how you represent yourself online? On an account that you directly link to your company?
On Lex Fridman recently DHH was enthusiastically bragging about how he was letting AI generate C++ that he intentionally wasn't even looking at, he was treating it as a pure black box and just submitting the output.
The root cause underlying all of that is the simple fact that the average person just isn't intelligent enough. They fall for the grift, they fall for the advertising, for the manipulation, the propaganda, the echo chambers, the emotion, the hate, they fall for it all. They're either unable to see it or escape it or both.
With the internet connecting everyone together, giving you direct, immediate, access to billions of people from the comfort of your own home, of course there's going to be classes of people working to siphon money (or power) from the unintelligent into their own pockets, rather than doing the hard work of actually producing value for their civilization.
There's also no real solution to this.
Of course, educating people is a solution, somehow getting people to be more intelligent. But that's a slow, long, process, and the more I see, the more I realize just how commonly intelligent people still fall prey to the same things.
The only other solution I see is blocking access for the majority for either consuming information from or contributing information to the internet, which is a hard pill to swallow, and which has its own horrible, and mostly unsolvable issues.
In reality I see the anti-app sentiment as mostly a scheme to get more data into the cloud, more traffic that can be collected and spied on, less power and control for the user, and demonizing local computing and users having control over their data. A scheme to give companies and government more complete control over everything you do. Basically further enshitification of computing infrastructure.
"I almost sold a car today, but if I did, sure it would have been some income, but who knows when the next time I would sell another car would be? Why bother? It's rinse and repeat"
You could have just posted the numbers to easily make/prove your point, but you didn't, and everyone knows why you didn't. Because the numbers don't align with what you're saying. But if enough people like you say it's true, I guess that makes it true, data be damned.
The doomerism has two primary sources:
1) Political - The ideology/party spreading the doomerism promotes that they're the ones that can "fix it", if only you vote for them.
2) Adversarial countries, primarily China - Using the internet to convince members of western civilization to hate their civilization, hate their economic system, hate their history, hate their compatriots, adopt a no motivation defeatist attitude, etc., etc., and they can get our population to destroy itself from within without having to go to war with us.
Reject the doomerism, reject the negativity. Build. Invent. Create. Do your part to contribute to your civilization, to contribute to humanity, to move us forwards.
It's so interesting to me that the whole "futurism" concept got co-opted into some sort of political propaganda machine. All the articles are negative hit pieces, they're all reductive, they're almost all political in nature. I used to go on the futurism subreddit years ago and it's all the same there. You'd think "futurism" would be about .. promoting new technology, ushering in the future, you know .. futurism. Not just another political propaganda outlet.
If even on Hacker News a topic like this can't be objectively discussed, what hope do we really have? What is the solution? Even in a place like this, the comments are full of extremist ideology, bickering, people arguing from feelings, people just repeating echo chambers mantras, and a significant portion of the comments are probably from inauthentic/propaganda accounts. We're incapable of just using a place like this to objectively, dispassionately, discus the facts/data and properly debate the various analyses of those facts.
I really feel like we need some sort of new revolution in terms of online communication, how it's done. How people share information and communicate. I just don't see how the current systems can continue existing without leading to societal disaster.
One of the great lakes alone (Ontario) contains enough fresh water that it could supply the lifetime water requirements of 28 billion people.
>> In other words, he and most of his contemporaries were convinced that science was pretty much done. This was of course before Einstein’s theories of relativity, quantum mechanics and today’s fruitless search for dark matter.
>> Science wasn’t done then and it’s not done today.
Ah, the good ol' "someone nearly 150 years ago made an incorrect assertion, which means that anybody that ever makes a similar assertion ever again is automatically wrong" argument.
For all the young people - you can find near exact clone copies of this comment every day, every month, from the last 20 years. Different poster each time, different company name each time, always the same great doom and gloom predictions. They're even remotely correct maybe 0.01% of the time. Heck, half of the time lately they're not even authentic people posting their thoughts, often they're foreign agents using the internet and anonymous communication to intentionally spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt about a rival country's economy, to weaken it.
Kind of reminds me of the neutered newspeak where people now choose to use words like "unalive" instead of "kill"
And how much fuel did the hybrid engine use during that same trip? Why give the figure for the electric side but not the gas side? What percentage of the trip's thrust came from electric rather than from gas? 99%? 0.01%?
"Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic. "
Story about politics .. check
Story about local "celebrity" politician .. check
Covered by mainstream TV news .. check
Comment thread full of political bickering .. check
Hundreds of votes and to the top of the front page you go!
Well, if a study decides to use a made up partisan propaganda term like "undocumented immigrant", which is a phrase which holds zero legal weight, has historically never existed until recent years, and which was created by and forced into the lexicon by political activists, it instantly invalidates the study in my mind. The people manipulating language to better serve their goals usually aren't the good guys. I instantly just assume the opposite of whatever the study is trying to say is likely true and move on.
On the one hand, you've got people with engineering degrees, writing detailed research papers describing exactly how to accomplish the task, designing hardware for companies that accomplishes the task, companies that are pouring billions of dollars into building such things, companies that have very related first-hand experience from operating 10,000+ satellites already.
On the other hand, you've got a career journalist, with a major in English language, who has never worked an IT, science, or engineering job at any point in their life (from their LinkedIn), who is calling all those people and companies idiot "tech bros" that don't know anything about engineering, claiming they've gone all this way while completely failing to think through the cooling requirements of building such a thing.
Hmm, I really wonder who's more likely to be correct here.
Just vote with your wallet and don't buy phones without a headphone jack. That's what I do, and I've always had a phone with one.
I doubt "the data" is anything more than a survey of said people's feelings on the manner, which is basically of zero value. But we live in an age where if enough people say something is true that "makes" it true, objective reality be damned.
>> Now, you could raise prices to the point where you destroy demand
Isn't that topic .. the first chapter of any economics 101 course? Supply and demand and how they influence each other? You think after hundreds of years of economic study we don't have any sort of grasp on these absolute most basic concepts?
The difference is that one of those things actually happened, and the other one is your hypothetical extremist/exaggerated/worst possible case of what might happen this time.
Look through the poster's submission history. 100% of submissions are political propaganda. It's not a real person / authentic account.
Couldn't be bothered to write your own description of your own business and used AI to write/edit it for you. Surely I'd trust you with direct access to my brokerage account.
China must be laughing themselves breathless. "We actually convinced those idiots to self-sabotage their own tech infrastructure, they're literally #resisting and refusing to allow their tech industry to advance". Destroying the country piece by piece without having to fire a single bullet.
I hope the data releases are a bit better than what I've seen from recent telescopes.
The common pattern seems to be that the majority of data is locked away behind multi-year embargo periods, or never released to the public at all with no explanation why, with only the smallest little crumbs of raw data actually released to the public, and usually years out of date. Also you have to go through some kafkaesque chain of technologies/servers/bureaucracy to get access to that little bit of data.
It's a little depressing to me when the public funds these telescopes and then get snubbed when it comes to getting access to the data they produce.