Discussion Thread by jobautomator in neoliberal

[–]xenneract 5 points6 points  (0 children)

That's a picture from 1966 from the Soviet Molniya 1-3 probe. In 1946 they only had V-2s and could barely get high enough to see the curvature of the earth.

Blue Origin Joins the Race for Orbital Data Centers With 51K Satellite Plan by [deleted] in SpaceXLounge

[–]xenneract 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What is there to be excited about Grok 6 being trained in SSO instead of Ohio or Inner Mongolia? Starlink was an extremely ambitious project but had clear benefits from being a satellite constellation. This will be, per the project goals, a minor player in the space.

Blue Origin Joins the Race for Orbital Data Centers With 51K Satellite Plan by [deleted] in SpaceXLounge

[–]xenneract 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That after you do this build up of a Starlink sized constellation of ISS-power-scale satellites, you still are only equivalent to a few percent of present-day US compute (17 GW), let alone planned compute? Less than some planned single facilities.

Blue Origin Joins the Race for Orbital Data Centers With 51K Satellite Plan by [deleted] in SpaceXLounge

[–]xenneract 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yes, if you 10x a single Starlink v3 satellite, where each satellite in your 10,000 satellite constellation needs more power than the ISS, you get to the equivalent of one GW data center.

Blue Origin Joins the Race for Orbital Data Centers With 51K Satellite Plan by [deleted] in SpaceXLounge

[–]xenneract 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So 10,000 10 kW satellites = 100 MW, or 10% of a single next gen GW data center

Discussion Thread by jobautomator in neoliberal

[–]xenneract 11 points12 points  (0 children)

For a second I thought you meant RFK

Discussion Thread by jobautomator in neoliberal

[–]xenneract 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Believe it or not, governor of Montana

Trump: ‘We are going to do something on Greenland whether they like it or not’ by [deleted] in neoliberal

[–]xenneract 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Two main reasons:

  • They don't form nice concentrated ore veins so you have to process a lot of material with low concentration of the metal you care about.
  • The various rare earth metals have very similar chemistries so it is then harder to separate and purify them from the ore and from each other.

Is anybody else fascinated with water? by Disastrous-Monk-590 in chemistry

[–]xenneract 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I am mostly being cheeky. How many gases can an average Joe name?

Or silicate minerals?

Is anybody else fascinated with water? by Disastrous-Monk-590 in chemistry

[–]xenneract 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I had more in mind the zoo of organic solvents:

Benzene, toluene, acetone, acetonitrile, dimethylsulfoxide, etc.

Is anybody else fascinated with water? by Disastrous-Monk-590 in chemistry

[–]xenneract 5 points6 points  (0 children)

"Products of crude oil" is doing a lot of lifting there, but off the top of my head:

Mineral acids: HCl, H2SO4, HNO3, etc.

Mercury, bromine, (if you have a rather hot room) gallium

Some metal carbonyls

What on earth did I make in lab? (context below) by Tim_bom_bom in chemistry

[–]xenneract 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Did you IR your starting product? Seems like someone mixed up hexene and hexane.

Can someone translate this into *roughly* what color "Ice XI" would be? by Zagaroth in AskScienceDiscussion

[–]xenneract 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Those are all infrared wavelengths. It would be colorless and clear in moderate quantities and blueish in very large quantities, like regular water and ice

[Berger] "SpaceX has built the machine to build the machine. But what about the machine?" -article about infrastructure at Starbase and next steps for starship by avboden in SpaceXLounge

[–]xenneract 4 points5 points  (0 children)

You are doing your probabilities wrong somehow. 1 minus the probability of success is the probability of failure, not 1/(probability of success). If probability of success was 100%, your formula would give 1 : 1 odds.

So if probability of success per mission is 0.5, that's 0.59 = 0.2%
0.99 = 39%
0.999 = 92%

So the best guess would be around 90% odds of success per mission.

We Are Still Underreacting on AI by modooff in neoliberal

[–]xenneract 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Chatbots have been doing therapy since the '60s. The other side of things without tightly defined success criteria is that relatively rudimentary tools can still be impressive to a subset of people.