Scratching my nuts while my smooth brain wonders... Why don't they task AI to find means of reducing power consumption.

---

market price stock for future not for current valuation. Software companies is gonna have to make a lot of compromises in the future as AI become essential in Task handling and they dont own any, their leverages will be abysmal in the market

---

Dear Jensen Huge Huang. Please give us robots already. Human interaction at a job still super tedious when it comes to bosses. “Do this task because it’s beneath me but you have to run everything you do by me.” Fuuucck!

---

Funny thing is that I was investigating CRMs to use at my company for a task. MicroStrategy was on my list but read that they moved away from software and focusing on bitcoin. So I didn't choose that one obviously. Then 3 months later this guys face is in all the financial news

---

My thinking originally was so bullish on everything bc what I imagined was me maneuvering around in excel with this little agent following me. Quick fire questions to accomplish task instantly, simple prompts to do complex formulas. I was like holy fuck , this is going to be so nice. And simultaneously, SOOOO bullish for legacy software that everyone uses. It’ll double our productivity. Now the trade seems to be, nah man you won’t even be there. It doesn’t need excel? Where is it doing all this work? Where’s the info being stored. What’s protecting the data?

---

If there is a feasible way to build a data center *on earth*, every big tech company would have long done it. Maintenance is one of the biggest ongoing expenses on a data center, disks fail, new tech is needed, scaling up here in there. Peoples salaries to do all of that. It’s like a car constantly driving around and it stopping or breaking down means you loose a giga shitton of money and reputation. A satellite on the other hand has old but reliable tech, nothing that needs physical change, and does only one or two things. It doesn’t matter if one disk fails, because the data on it basically is just temporary data is, with all the data being sent to earth to a *datacenter* anyways. It doesn’t need cutting edge hardware/technology, all it has to do is „get command, do something, send stuff back“. Even if the hardware fails, so what - we just use one of the multiple other satellites up there to do the task and send a new one up every once in a while anyways. If a data center is a car that must never stop, a satellite would be a BIC lighter - it does one thing, you may fill it up a few times but eventually throw it away. Satellites get replaced after 5-15 years due to them being technologically obsolete or hardware decay. But a data center? Lots of disk failures means loss of data, which may or may not be backed up but definitely will cause an outage for whatever is using the data center. Long term storage if failing disks cannot be replaced is like lighting a candle under your balls if you can’t move. Not being able to scale up and install better tech means your data center can’t compete with the performance of those on earth. Cyber attack may or may not give the attacker full and unadulterated control of the data center until you manage to send someone up there 2 weeks later to physically log in. You gotta replace your data centers every 10-15 years too, if it’s 100% autark due to hardware decay. Have fun transferring Petabytes between two data centers, with one of them nearing its end of life. Unless he builds a small dwarf planet with its own habitants building our latest equipment and hardware and doing the maintenance, a data center is about the technological polar opposite of a satellite. He will not build a data center in space, at best he will build his own space island with a big sign „definitely a data center“. Suspiciously only the top 0.1% and a large chunk of kids get send up to that space island to do „maintenance“. And it also says „Epstein is not allowed here“ on a paper sign below the big data center sign.

---

As a Recently, Handicap Person I need a robot to do some of the task in the condo that I would do myself. Also, I need it for safety in case I fall out of a wheelchair. It could pick me up and put me back in a wheelchair. Self driving car same thing just jumping in the backseat of my car have a drive me to the mall. If there are any malls anymore could do what I need to do and jump back in and go home. Starlink is a good idea I really don’t need a rocket ship to ride in and I’m not planning on moving to Mars. I get enough money to move to Mars. I just buy a really nice place here actually too nice places one in Montana and one in Florida. I love California, but there’s no way a normal person can live there.

---

>Ah, yes. Datacenters in space. It's the dumbest fucking idea. Traditional convection cooling methods don't work in space, and space is not actually "cold" but lacking a temperature entirely. Meaning any "datacenter in space" is going to melt itself into a solid chunk of slag and deorbit in short order. The ISS' EATCS ammonia-based cooling system is far and away not efficient enough to keep an entire datacenter operating, and it can't work at-scale because, again, it's an ammonia cooling loop that is going to get less efficient the further you have to move the ammonia down the line. Moreover, leaks and problems in the cooling system happen with regular frequency on the ISS (and much more frequent when you're running it as hard as a datacenter would be,) which means you have to either launch a repair mission from the ground or have a permanent attendant in space to go fix shit on a space walk--again: wildly, insanely, stupidly, butt-fuckingly inefficient. And that's *just cooling.* Power is going to be an impossible task, since solar arrays don't draw enough power for a datacenter. They'd have to put a nuclear reactor on the thing, and a passive RTG nuclear power module won't generate enough for a datacenter. Which means somehow putting an active nuclear power generator on a space station. Which means more heat, and more maintenance, and more permanent crew who will surely die when one of these systems fails. And when the thing comes crashing back down to earth, you now have a NUCLEAR debris field buck-shotting across a wide area. You can't just launch shit into space like that. Anything you put into space is going to be a thousand times less efficient than what's on the ground. We put shit into space when there's stuff we can *only do in space.* And when we do, we do as much of the work as possible *on the ground.*

---

Yeah the data center in space is dumb, and it'll simply never happen. It would cost a hundred million dollars to get one server rack worth of processing power in space. But cool right? That does.... Absolutely nothing for you. Like you said, we have data centers on earth. There's no advantage to sending your task to one in orbit. None, zilch, nada. Meanwhile you could have that same rack running on earth for a startup cost of less than $25,000. Spacex will have a lot less government work after they deorbit the ISS. It also actually has some competition now with the Chinese rockets and Bezos. Their only real valuable offering is Starlink which is a genuinely compelling offering. However the answer to space where there's already a lot of competition. The idea that you could have cell phone service or internet anywhere on Earth is awesome and will get a fair amount of use. However most customers already have cell phones and internet from terrestrial sources that are faster and cheaper. Your average home user isn't going to switch to Starlink when they have a fiber connection. They aren't going to drop Verizon. This is more for people who live off the grid, countries with poor infrastructure, people on boats, etc. So they will always absolutely have customers there, but we're not talking hundreds of millions of subscribers. But wait? They are also giving you X and Grok. Obviously they both have some value, but Grok has a pitiful amount of traffic compared to either openai or gemini. To put this in perspective, it would be like when Google completely took over and was king of the search in 2010 and someone said hey want to buy Lycos? Now X has real value. However it lost a lot since Musk took over. X is all advertising, and most brands don't want the optics of being associated with a controversial brand. Because of this, they make a lot less money on advertising than they used to. TLDR. $1,500,000,000,000 has two too many zeros. If it went IPO for $15 Billion, it would sound right. Still inflated from a business point of view, but hey, it's Musk. The guy is famous. $1.5 trillion is just fiction. It'll crash hard!

---