I see no reason for this to get flagged. Not every heated comment section deserves a flag, and no one is insulting each other. If it’s done by the mods, I think we deserve an explanation.
He most likely cares about Tesla as much as the upper stage of a Space X rocket cares about the first stage booster after separation. It served it's purpose and can now burn up or explode. Zero fucks given once he's in orbit.
With $5.5M, you can buy around 150 H100s. Experts correct me if I’m wrong but it’s practically impossible to train a model like that with that measly amount.
So I doubt that figure includes all the cost of training.
It's even more. You also need to fund power and maintain infrastructure to run the GPUs. You need to build fast networks between the GPUs for RDMA. Ethernet is going to be too slow. Infiniband is unreliable and expensive.
You’ll also need sufficient storage, and fast IO to keep them fed with data.
You also need to keep the later generation cards from burning themselves out because they draw so much.
Oh also, depending on when your data centre was built, you may also need them to upgrade their power and cooling capabilities because the new cards draw _so much_.
The cost, as expressed in the DeepSeek V3 paper, was expressed in terms of training hours based on the market rate per hour if they'd rented the 2k GPUs they used.
No, it's a full model. It's just...most concisely, it doesn't include the actual costs.
Claude gave me a good analogy, been struggling for hours: its like only accounting for the gas grill bill when pricing your meals as a restaurant owner
The thing is, that elides a lot, and you could argue it out and theoratically no one would be wrong. But $5.5 million elides so much info as to be silly.
ex. they used 2048 H100 GPUs for 2 months. That's $72 million. And we're still not even approaching the real bill for the infrastructure. And for every success, there's another N that failed, 2 would be an absurdly conservative estimate.
People are reading the # and thinking it says something about American AI lab efficiency, rather, it says something about how fast it is to copy when you can scaffold by training on another model's outputs. That's not a bad thing, or at least, a unique phenomena. That's why it's hard talking about this IMHO
'Cancel culture' isn't a government sanctioned censure of an individual, it's actions taken by private parties toward another private party that they no longer wish to do business with because of public pressure or public image issues. Sounds pretty free market to me.
God I'm so tired of these pathetic attempts at evading the point. No, it's not against the principles of democracy to fight back against someone trying to destabilize your democracy. The tolerance paradox applies here, Elon is begging, daring the UK to do something, and all is fair in love and war.
AfD is not a neo-nazi party. They are one of the oldest parties and the second largest party in Germany, and there is a "pro-democracy" move to ban them and attack their members. They are conservative nationalists but so what? The whole point of any political party is supposed to be to look out for the country itself and its constituents first. I'm so sick and tired of liberals acting like it is some kind of ultimate racist evil to be against excessive immigration. I'm also really tired of having to be concerned with European politics. But for whatever reason, most Western countries have similar issues with bad policies.
> In January 2017, Höcke in a speech stated, in reference to the Berlin Holocaust Memorial, that "Germans are the only people in the world who plant a monument of shame in the heart of the capital" and criticized this "laughable policy of coming to terms with the past"
^ that is just one of the rather mild things that are just a constant in that milieu.
His statement is hyperbolic and perhaps strikes some people as insensitive, but what do you think it means to come to terms with something like that? A memorial doesn't seem unreasonable (though I have not seen the memorial), but what is unreasonable is expecting people to hang their heads low forever and sell out their own interests in contrition for that was done by a small number of despots in their country three or more generations ago. Most Germans even at the time had no idea that the Holocaust was happening, and were horrified to find out just like the rest of the world. What if the administration of your country decided to kill millions of people somewhere for whatever reason? It already has on multiple occasions, and is there any memorial for the victims anywhere in the capital for each occasion?
Dredging up the past might be educational or enlightening, but in some cases it inspires people who don't know each other to hate each other or else to become hypersensitive to offenses by other groups. Also, being against immigration is not bad. Some cultures just don't work well together and can't be mixed, like oil and water. When a situation like that is identified, then it should be talked about and reversed if necessary to PREVENT violence.
> what is unreasonable is expecting people to hang their heads low forever and sell out their own interests in contrition
What is that even in reference to? The AfD is fully neoliberal, they're the last to talk about selling out.
> for that was done by a small number of despots in their country three or more generations ago. Most Germans even at the time had no idea that the Holocaust was happening
Let's just accept that as face value: and then we found out, and decided this must NEVER EVER happen again. Not "not more than in one of three generations". And that requires teaching each new generation everything of what happened there. If you don't have the stamina and intellectual honesty for that, there's the exit.
And "a small number of despots" didn't commit the Holocaust, and the Holocaust wasn't the only crime the Nazis committed, "just" the one that shocked even people who had accepted all sorts of other atrocities -- as long as they thought it might mean they would win.
It's not a negative thing to teach, just like it's not negative to teach Americans about slavery. That is what happened, you cannot change it. And you cannot have dignity while denying the truth, period. Not ever. You can have some armband to identify with, but it doesn't make you more dignified, it just sets the real you aside to gather dust, while you stare at the armband.
> Dredging up the past might be educational or enlightening
If you use electricity, is that also "dredging up inventions from the past"? It's not negative to know what happened, and where this mindless identification with "sides" and slogans can lead to. It's a discovery we made and will keep, considering the price it came with.
> but in some cases it inspires people who don't know each other to hate each other or else to become hypersensitive to offenses by other groups.
Now that's quite the trick: teaching about how propaganda and peer pressure enabled persecution at such giant scale might "inspire people who don't know each other to hate each other"? How so? Who exactly would be hated, by whom, by Germans learning about and staying aware of German history?
> Some cultures just don't work well together and can't be mixed, like oil and water.
Yeah, like people from Hamburg and Bavaria, right? What cultures are you talking about? What is "the" German culture, what cultures are compatible with it, based on what properties, and what cultures aren't, based on what properties? Because I only ever hear the generic adjective as if it means something, from people who want to somehow be "proud to be German", but then barely speak the language and are, time and time again, either unaware or dismissive of the history.
>Let's just accept that as face value: and then we found out, and decided this must NEVER EVER happen again. Not "not more than in one of three generations". And that requires teaching each new generation everything of what happened there.
Let's just accept that as face value, these events become less relevant to each passing generation, and you don't rightfully get to decide what your great(x20) grandchildren are concerned with. How many people in Mongolia do you think are mourning the atrocities of Ghengis Khan? Whether you believe it or not, the Holocaust will reach a point of irrelevance, just like basically every bad deed done under the sun.
>If you don't have the stamina and intellectual honesty for that, there's the exit.
Honestly, dragging up the past and applying labels to people when they don't deserve it is not going to prevent any atrocity. It's going to create bad blood between groups of people who otherwise would have no issue.
>It's not a negative thing to teach, just like it's not negative to teach Americans about slavery. That is what happened, you cannot change it. And you cannot have dignity while denying the truth, period. Not ever.
So, apart from "telling the truth" tactfully in a way that does not create improper appearances, I think disabusing yourself of your own dignity over things that a small percentage of the population of the country who happened to look like you generations ago is a bad thing. Do you believe children are responsible for the evils of their parents? If you don't believe that, then why do believe everyone who looks a certain way in a country is responsible for what other people who look like them did many years before? Demanding undeserved shame and even monetary consideration from people who have done nothing wrong is a good way to make yourself one of the most hated people in the world.
>If you use electricity, is that also "dredging up inventions from the past"? It's not negative to know what happened, and where this mindless identification with "sides" and slogans can lead to. It's a discovery we made and will keep, considering the price it came with.
It's not up to you what lessons anyone else in the distant future will learn. As for "sides" it seems to me that some people are quick to label anyone else they disagree with a tiny mustache man, which trivializes the German tragedy and totally qualifies as "mindless identification" and othering of everyone else. As in, "If you're not with us on immigration, you're literally a Nazi, and we don't talk to Nazis." So the lesson is not really learned now is it? Except when Jewish people literally enter the conversation, it makes no sense, and it is often used to shut down legitimate criticism of people who happen to be Jewish.
>Now that's quite the trick: teaching about how propaganda and peer pressure enabled persecution at such giant scale might "inspire people who don't know each other to hate each other"? How so? Who exactly would be hated, by whom, by Germans learning about and staying aware of German history?
How so? Are you kidding? It seems to me that on the surface, white German people are hated as a whole by at least a notable minority of every other group of Germans. Jewish Germans will be suspicious of non-Jewish Germans, especially nationalists.
To give you a non-German example of how dwelling on the past can be unhealthy, I return to the US. In the US it has become fashionable to associate racism with patriotism, as if you can't love this country without being a racist, simply because some people in its distant past used slave labor before (labor from both whites and blacks, and a practice which was common at the time). There are many examples of people who don't know each other getting into awful situations with other people who they don't know, all because of historical baggage that they were taught about people who look a certain way. I take it you have been privileged to avoid any such situations in your life, but they do happen. Why should a white person in 2025 be afraid to look a black compatriot in the eye because of misdeeds of OTHER white people hundreds of years before he was born? Why should a black person view any given white person with suspicion or even disdain, except for having been told that people who look like him (and were in truth VERY different people, living in VERY different times) did something against some other black people in the past?
>>Some cultures just don't work well together and can't be mixed, like oil and water.
>What cultures are you talking about? What is "the" German culture, what cultures are compatible with it, based on what properties, and what cultures aren't, based on what properties?
For the Germans? That would be the cultures of many of the Muslim immigrants who want a Muslim theocracy to enforce Sharia Law and burkas for all women, for example, compared to the culture of the natives. Basically all Western cultures are incompatible with that yet our overlords keep trying to push people together with incompatible cultures that have never lived together and have no desire to live together. I think they want to tear down any unity that can exist in any country, so that people are too distracted with each other to notice how they're getting screwed.
>What is "the" German culture, what cultures are compatible with it, based on what properties, and what cultures aren't, based on what properties? Because I only ever hear the generic adjective as if it means something, from people who want to somehow be "proud to be German", but then barely speak the language and are, time and time again, either unaware or dismissive of the history.
I don't know because I'm not German, but every group of people has its own customs. I imagine that Germans identify with many of the Western values of liberalism and democracy, have their own cultural habits, food preferences (including consumption of pork and alcohol), valuing hard work and precision in engineering, etc. There is a lot to the country and its people besides unfortunate events in the early 20th century. Up until recent decades it was also almost entirely white ethnic Germans living there. Why aren't they allowed to be proud of their culture, and to simply (and rarely) denounce awful things that they had nothing to do with, and for whose benefit should they hang their heads in constant shame?
America is a far more diverse place than Germany with a much shorter history and I think it would be foolish to insinuate that Americans don't have a culture or anything to be proud of, because of any of the unfortunate things that some Americans did in the past.
Your question becomes far more ludicrous if you substitute anything else for "German." What does it mean to be proud to be anything? Black, white, Chinese, Indian, American, British, Nigerian, Catholic, Protestant, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, tall, handsome, etc.... It is a little bit silly to be proud of something that is purely circumstantial, especially when it comes to culture, but it makes about as much sense as being proud of your own family. That is, you are part of your family and your family is a part of you (to the extent that you want either of these things to be the case).
> these events become less relevant to each passing generation, and you don't rightfully get to decide what your great(x20) grandchildren are concerned with.
In context of you claiming the AfD is "one of the oldest parties in Germany", and Alice Weidel (AfD party leader) claiming Hitler was a communist just now, I'd say people just making shit up isn't something 20 generations into the future. And for people in the future to have the choice whether they want to be concerned about something in the past, they first have to know about it. So revisionism is right out, fundamentally. If you don't get why Germans are finicky about that, actually do read up on our history. But even generally, states have historical continuity and it matters, you can't say "I want to keep living in the borders that are there for X reason, but lie about whatever I want".
> Do you believe children are responsible for the evils of their parents? If you don't believe that, then why do believe everyone who looks a certain way in a country is responsible for what other people who look like them did many years before?
No, I believe neither, which is why I said neither.
> Demanding undeserved shame and even monetary consideration from people who have done nothing wrong is a good way to make yourself one of the most hated people in the world.
The question is "are the AfD neo-Nazis", and you come out with "they're one of the oldest parties in Germany" and now this stuff? I'll have you know that the AfD is a fan of what Israel is doing in Gaza.
> It's not up to you what lessons anyone else in the distant future will learn.
This isn't (just) about "lessons", this is about the factual reality to draw lessons from, see "revisionism" above.
> white German people are hated as a whole by at least a notable minority of every other group of Germans. Jewish Germans will be suspicious of non-Jewish Germans, especially nationalists.
Nah. I'll take your blank assertion as a white German male who was born here and just say "nah". Whatever prejudice of that kind there may be is far outweighed by everybody who enjoys the togetherness of not indulging in that shit. You know, real diversity?
There are actual problems with integration, but the AfD is not interested in or capable of helping with that. They are total neoliberal clowns, out to sell of the state and the people in it to the highest bidder, they just use foreigners as scapegoats to fatten the coffers of their actual overlords (including constantly cozying up to Putin), so decreasing social security and all that -- while talking about imaginary "woke/far-left overlords" to those who may get duped by it.. which essentially just means "people in the arena of words, which we checked out 6 decades ago to just mumble amongst ourselves, have gone too far, so SMASH THE WORDS, because we are so BACK!".
Well nope. They offer no solutions, they are exploiting issues to make them worse. Like what you write about Burkas below, you should see the horrible, rancid shit some AfD people say about women. It's way, way worse than Trump's "grab them by the pussy", I'll say that.
Integration requires having a spine, treating people firmly and fairly. The AfD do not have it in them, they cannot even stand up to scrutiny to a moderately bright German. You don't "command respect" by burning refugee homes at night, either.
> As in, "If you're not with us on immigration, you're literally a Nazi, and we don't talk to Nazis."
No, you brought up immigration. Nobody claimed the AfD are Neo-Nazis just because of that. It's just a given that they have this stance, too.
> For the Germans? That would be the cultures of many of the Muslim immigrants who want a Muslim theocracy to enforce Sharia Law and burkas for all women, for example, compared to the culture of the natives. Basically all Western cultures are incompatible with that yet our overlords keep trying to push people together with incompatible cultures that have never lived together and have no desire to live together.
Who are "our overlords"? Not just mega corporations etc, right? Because again, the AfD is fully neoliberal, they are on board with creating the conditions that allow people to see other small fish (or ominous "overlords" but never just anything to do with income tax etc.) as scapegoats.
> I don't know because I'm not German, but every group of people has its own customs. I imagine that Germans identify with many of the Western values of liberalism and democracy
Yes, which is why the AfD, who had a member dancing on the Holocaust memorial, not just criticizing it, who has people saying how they'll round up journalists and homosexuals and whatnot when they're in power, who has (along with the CDU..) people attending little secret meetings ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAhoQrrfXiY ) about deporting people they don't deem German enough, does not belong. For any immigrant it's at least up to the person -- not up to you and your prejudice -- but the AfD made that decision already.
> There is a lot to the country and its people besides unfortunate events in the early 20th century.
Unfortunate events? How many concentration camps have you visited? How many relatives who lived during that time have you spoken to? How many dozens, hundreds of books have you read about it? You have no idea what you are even talking about. Adding "early" as if it makes a difference. Every city has houses where people were dragged out of them as their neighbors looked away, or were scared. The ignorance of people who "don't want to be bothered" has no weight. You want to live on the ground where this happened, preferably learn what happened -- but at the very least don't interfere with the learning of it, or you're a complete persona non grata. That goes for Germans, that goes for immigrants.
> Your question becomes far more ludicrous if you substitute anything else for "German."
Maybe, but this is about the AfD, and Germany. Germans have wondered about "what does being German even mean" for a looong time, for centuries. Since you're not a German interested in history and literature, you have no way of knowing that. But even before the Nazis, the answer for many included not so much being "liberal and democratic" but (also) cosmopolitan, that ideal is much older I'd say. That's where the whole achievements and pride stuff comes from, too: not just some Germans being super German to other Germans, or debating what that even is, but being able to to interact with and interested in the world. That's a big part of Germany, a big country smack in the middle of Europe.
It's a unique history and when Germans laugh at other Germans for pretending there is a "German-ness" everybody just knows about and agrees on, it has a reason.
Just take the just recent reunification on top of that, too! We can talk about specific values, and specific individuals who want to live here can be asked to adhere to them. And we can talk about how to improve that. But this generic stuff about "cultures" is like Elon Musk talking about Path of Exile. He thinks what he says is reasonable, but if you actually know, you know how far off the mark it is. Even German Neo-Nazis can do nothing but deflect when asked what "German culture" is. They won't even pay lip service to "liberal democracy", they'd phrase their scapegoating of Muslims differently.
And nationalism is very different from patriotism. We had the Nazis already, there are whole libraries of really smart people having mulled over these issues, and the mechanisms of it. Of course the people who want to repeat it say learning about it is not important. Of course the people who never learned about it in the first place don't. Irrelevant.
> I'm so sick and tired of liberals acting like it is some kind of ultimate racist evil to be against excessive immigration.
Im also sick and tired of Liberals not realising that they are abetting corporate slavery via excessive immigration and rationalizing it that they are helping these immigrants. And arguing ”we need skilled immigrants”. What these Liberals are advocating is brain draining these countries which helps to perpetuate their poverty and backwardness if you take all their educated and skilled people.
AfD is not the oldest, or even that old of a party. And they absolutely are neo Nazis. Not sure if you're thinking about another party, or just sympathetic to their garbage worldview, but ignorance isn't an excuse to carry water for Nazis.
My bad, it indeed seems to not be the oldest. But it is certainly not brand new or unpopular. Can you give me evidence that they are Nazis? I don't mean finding a few Nazis that happen to be members, I mean proof that their platform is the Nazi program. As I'm sure you are aware, the Nazi party is banned in Germany and even displaying Nazi symbology can get you in trouble there.
> I don't mean finding a few Nazis that happen to be members
Ah the few local Nazis that just happened to stumble upon the membership, while the rest of them were just fine with it. Reminds me of the good old "you're not marching with Nazis, you are a Nazi".
The serious answer is this: Nazis strive to replace democratic government with a fascist dictatorship. They wish to get rid of people they deem as their enemies. Anyone who tolerates people with ideology like this cannot be viewed as anything but the same as them. So, if your party has a few Nazis, it's all Nazis.
>The serious answer is this: Nazis strive to replace democratic government with a fascist dictatorship.
So how is it democracy to ban this party and harass its members again? Should Germans be concerned about other parties adopting fascist tactics to control who they can vote for?
>They wish to get rid of people they deem as their enemies.
So like the left, correct?
>So, if your party has a few Nazis, it's all Nazis.
Nobody has presented me with proof that any Nazis are in AfD, and that there are no Nazis in other parties. I don't know if AfD is open like US political parties, where one can just claim to be a member. But unless someone is at least widely known to be an open Nazi, and the party registered them as a member with full knowledge of that (or at least refused to revoke membership of a known Nazi), it's all slander.
What is your take on the leadership of Ukraine having literal bonafide Nazis in it? Are they a concern of yours, or do you just accept what the "thought leaders" tell you?
After certain people have called Republicans in the US "Nazis" for the past 8 years based on nothing, I'm so done with people who pull out that word for anyone they disagree with. Pony up some proof or buzz off.
Regarding Nazis in Ukraine, I'm not sure how it relates to this. Certainly worrying if true. However their country was invaded over a decade ago and is in active war, so not sure how to compare with Germany at all.
I know about the paradox of tolerance. It cuts both ways. You can't have free speech when you have some people banning anything they don't like on some pretense of "intolerance." You can't dismiss this as "we will just make exceptions" because the left is demanding censorship of just about anyone that doesn't agree.
"Cancel Culture," while legal, is fundamentally against the concept of free speech. It is true that religious conservatives once upon a time orchestrated censorship and public shaming of people they disagreed with. But the recent instances of political persecution put anything the right did in our lifetimes to shame. The closest would be the way suspected communists were treated during the Red Scare, and that actually had at least a plausible justification.
I honestly don't know that much about AfD (nobody but you has even tried to answer my request for proof that they are the new Nazi party, despite downvotes, which I find is suggestive of it all being a fabrication). I can tell you that conservative populists are taking heat in most of the West. It's like there's a conspiracy to work against the will of the people orchestrated by an international coalition of powerful people. I would take anything that any Western media outfit says with a grain of salt. They have been whining about populist conservative wins just about everywhere (for example, the US, Germany, Italy, Romania, Argentina...), and trying to paint all conservatives as racists and fascists.
In closing, I would like to say beware of fascists who claim to want to protect you from fascists, or claim to have the moral high ground. We can't have democracy without free speech and autonomy over ourselves in general, and we can't have free speech without people being free to offend each other and say even horrible things. Almost any rule you can think of to regulate mere words can be contorted into something that can silence anyone not in a position to enforce the rules. I mean that literally. How long before demanding lower taxes is deemed hate speech and violence against those who don't pay? I know it sounds insane but politics since 2016 (and I would say, much earlier) has shown us that quite a few powerful people are willing to enforce arbitrary ludicrous limitations on (or retaliation for) free speech like that.
> because the left is demanding censorship of just about anyone that doesn't agree.
I have seen many things that leftists would not agree with, but no one has demanded them to be censored. Honestly no idea what this means. However, if you want to see something like this in action, check who Musk is blocking on X and why.
> "Cancel Culture," while legal, is fundamentally against the concept of free speech.
The people typically practicing "cancel culture" do not own any platforms. They are a loud minority not officially attached to any political party. I claim the real reason for this is that it is a backlash to decades of repression of minorities and women, who finally had a channel to express their frustration. Some good came out of it, such as getting rid of Harvey Weinstein. Other rapists, such as Donald Trump were immune to this culture.
> We can't have democracy without free speech
I claim the opposite is true. In the current era of personalized social media, the fire hose of misinformation and emotion driven messaging far outweighs reasoned information. We will see a new oligarchy emerging in the US in the coming 4 years and beyond, and they will want to control Europe as well.
Adjusting in increments truly helps. If you usually sleep 8 hours, try waking half an hour early for a few days. It won't cause sleep deprivation, but you'll feel the need to go to bed early.
Real question… how do you “ground” electrical in a space craft? There’s no earth. Large capacitors or something? Or do you just have to live with a floating ground (literally)?
The latter, much the same as the "ground" in an automobile or airplane (or even just any old battery-operated device).
"Ground" is an arbitrarily-chosen voltage convention. In space the floating ground won't cause a fault because there's never an electrical circuit with both the floating ground and the 'real' ground.
Indeed cars, airplanes, boats, all have “grounds” that are not “earthed” in any way.
Fun tidbit, old English cars (and the original Ford Model A!) used to tie positive DC to the frame rail as a “ground” or “common” instead of the negative DC. They are referred to as positive ground cars (and tractors!)
Airplanes do have static wicks [0] which could be seen as a form of local ground. I love these as an example of the adjacent engineering challenges that arise.
Busses also (used to?) have ground straps that you may see dragging. Apparently this was somewhat common on cars as well. "bus ground strap" is unsurprisingly difficult to search for, but I did find a discussion on Quora [1] that claims rubber formulations were responsible for vehicles picking up a static charge.
All of this is interesting once seen as an attempt to remove the potential difference between local "ground" and ambient environment.
Which modern cars, for example? As far as I know the era of positive ground vehicles ended roughly during the fifties, and very much by the sixties at the latest.
Apparently you attach all grounds to some common component, like the chassis and then you have a zero volt reference. As long as it is stable and the relative voltages to it are consistent, that should suffice for electrical systems. Handling overall charge of the craft might be a bigger challenge, but no idea how that would be handled.
Protective actions are required by the docking standard so it’s taken care of at docking but I find it very hard to find detailed information about implementations. It’s either very niche or considered sensitive enough to not be published widely.
I guess they use the same solution than during EVA which is running the Plasma Contactor Units to dissipate any buildup.
The docking spacecraft must follow a NASA standard[1] to avoid building up electrostatic charge.
From the Commercial Crew requirements document[2]:
3.9.3.13 Integrated Space Vehicle Electrostatic Charge Control
3.9.3.13.1 LEO Charging Design Standard
The spacecraft shall meet the intent of the requirements contained in NASA-STD-4005, Low
Earth Orbit Spacecraft Charging Design Standard. [R.CTS.285]
How the contractors achieve that might be proprietary. It looks like (at one time) SpaceX used electrically conductive paint[3] as part of their mitigations.
You missed this one: "International Docking System Standard
(IDSS)" [0] which I actually read that before answering hence my "required by the docking standard".
You will see that it says: "IDSS compliant mechanisms protect against electrostatic discharge through the soft capture system" which is to say not much.
That’s still more than the previous standard for which the paragraph on ESD just says "RESERVED".
TL;DR they dissipate charge using three Plasma Contactor Units (PCUs) on the Z1 truss, and measure it using the Floating Potential Measurement Unit (FPMU) on the S1 truss. This clamps the ISS to within 20 volts of the local plasma.
Fun fact: it's very difficult to get rid of built-up charge in space. And guess what incident EM radiation does to your electronics: that's right, it can build up charge! To my understanding, this is especially a problem when charge is built up in specific dielectrics/insulators or the very delicate structures of modern transistors and other semiconductor devices. This so-called "total ionizing dose" [1] can lead to "leakage currents, degrade the gain of a device, affect timing characteristics, and, in some cases, result in complete functional failure" [2].
Any RF or EMC engineer will tell you that ground is a dirty word, especially in extreme conditions. There's no one-size-fits-all approach, since so much depends on the physical context.
At least it's not there's no Earth. I think we've seen that movie where Earth disappears from the space station.
I would assume everything on ISS and capsules are running DC. Does DC need a ground? Every electronic circuit I've built just uses ground as the common leg to battery or power.
Here is the thing: many software engineers don't need to learn a language "properly."
When you start a new job, there will almost always be an existing code base, and you'll have to make contributions to it. Pattern recognition will get you a long way before you need to dive deep into the language internals.
You are mixing two things. Learning a language and learning a codebase. Those are not the same thing. Besides, you are also just talking about what happens during the first N months. Most companies I've worked for allow for time to learn the language(s) being used. Some of them will fire you if you can't show sufficient progress over time.
Not so much. I know quite a few languages very well, more than the average programmer, and more often than not a senior programmer overrides your recommendation and don’t know the language as well as you or some other red tape. What has never happened is getting an increase in pay for knowing a language well.
So I share the sentiment that learning a language well is valuable. It’s not, and with the newer AI tools coming out there will soon be no reason to learn any language in depth.
I think you have that exactly backwards. LLM-based tools do best on shallow-knowledge tasks. It’s depth where they struggle. Show me the syntax for constructing a lazy sequence in your language? LLM. Reason about its performance characteristics and interactions with other language features? Human, for the foreseeable future.
> I think, most people who want to be immortal are actually motivated by either the fear of death...
How are you not afraid of death? How is anyone not afraid of death? This baffles me. I mean, I don't spend my days agonizing over the fact that I will die someday, mainly because it has no use. Chronic anxiety won't help me as long as I take the necessary actions. But I'm sure as hell scared shitless of dying overall.
If I were 100 years old and every day was a struggle, sure, I'd want to just get it over with. But I have a really hard time understanding why people won't want to stay 30 years old forever. You, your conscience, the only thing that matters, will cease to exist. If that doesn't strike fear in a person, I don't know what will.
What is there to be afraid of about death, exactly? If you don't believe in any afterlife or continuation, then there will be no consciousness to perceive the other side of death.
If you do believe in an afterlife or continuation, you'll have spent your life preparing accordingly.
For me the problem is not death itself, but the steady decline that usually comes before it. Biologically immortal humans would still die eventually, but there wouldn’t be decades of old age before death.
I didn't exist for billions of years before I gained consciousness as a child. I'm sure I won't mind not existing for billions of years after my system expires.
The existence of a mind is a property of this mysterious universe that is obvious yet not described by any physical law.
We know so little what consciousness is at the age of the universe timescale (and possibly the infinite multiverse, which actually guarantees an infinite number of configurations of you), it’s hard to think that death is the obvious end of you-ness.
I mean, there are plenty of things that are worse than death. I myself have an informal "anti-bucket list" -- things I want to make sure I die without doing / have happen to me. It's a LOOONG list.
Alzheimer's. Paralysis. Elder abuse. Bone cancer. Even identity death. I think anyone who is that terrified of death is doing so from an adolescent "bad things only happen to other people" mindset.
If I see any of those coming around the corner, I have intent to make like Ambrose Bierce: get my affairs in order and then go off into harm's way.
"If you hear of my being stood up against a Mexican stone wall and shot to rags, please know that I think it is a pretty good way to depart this life. It beats old age, disease, or falling down the cellar stairs."
I think most people have that thought, but few act on it. And unfortunately, death is not the only harm that can come from harm's way. Stray bullets can find spines and genitals about as easily as they can find hearts.
Death is just the name we give to the moment when the condensed energy that is moving this system that calls itself a body breaks down into a temporarily simpler state.
At some point I'll get caught up in some whirlpool of energy and find myself crawling out of some uterus again as I have time and time again for all of eternity.
So you define yourself as energy? Not your conscience? Because your conscience and sense of self is what most people would describe as gone when you die, and that's where the fear comes from. Energy has no feelings, no conscience, no self...
It is not an idea that one needs to have given to them. It is the simple conclusion of known physics. However, the claim that "energy has consciousness" is a non-obvious idea, which can't be derived from the evidence and mathematics we use to describe the universe. It should be supported if you believe it. It would be an important learning about the universe. That, or you're redefining "energy" as "any system that contains energy," (including a human being, which very few would define as "pure energy").
Is there any meaning to this position you're taking? Does it support predictions about the world? Does it change how you think about the world?
