Yes, that was not an exhaustive list. Both, Germany and Britain are on it too. Any developed country is.

That is not even correct anymore. China is nowadays in the lead on battery technology in specific and EVs in general anxx dc that lead is home made. The West simply did not care about battery technology that much, as it was considered a low return business. You can’t copy that much anymore if you are the technology leader yourself. China is also increasingly outresearching the rest in other fields.

I am not saying that China isn’t still copying elsewhere where it isn’t technology leader. The US and Japan have historically done the same.

PS: Regarding LLMs, no tears for thiefs being stolen from btw.

How is that possible? Is that a fake post, never posted to r/linuxsucks101 or has the mod there not read to paint 6 either?

The EU is rather special in this regard. While the EU enacts those fines, none of those fines end up in the EU budget but will be handed down to the member states, who in turn have no say on the application of these fines.

Yes, that was already the appeal and Google lost in court. There is no regress to that. Google has to pay that fine.

Yes but its very dirty solar energy because rockets are very dirty and the amount of energy to lift all those arrays into orbit is substantial.

Projected cost targets from SpaceX, especially for Starship are only losely related to reality. Weight is what determines the minimal required energy input to lift something into orbit. Independently from SpaceX number magic. Volume, like I said, can be an additional bottleneck but never undo the above.

Nah. Arch is not noob friendly per se but with CachyOS installing and getting most of what you need to run is very easy. Experience with Steam and Proton is painless. Things can get harder when you are starting to dig deeper.

You get banned for not posting hate posts there. Pretty fascinating hate echo chamber.

You do need margins not just for humans.

Building something the size of an (unmanned) space station for a single server rack, yes, it makes no sense. The energy needed to lift all that stuff into orbit, the comically inefficient cooling and never mind the issues of impact damage and radiation and inability to do any service (without huge effort) if things go wrong, all make this a pretty irrational idea.

Just put that server rack in Iceland with geothermal power and closed loop heat pump. But then the tech oligarchs would have to comply with laws and that is probably the reason they want it up in space. There surely is no technical reason for it.

It does make sense for the provider as those for a specific model provide a good measure for computational effort, for that doecific model. That doesn’t mean that token rate comparison between models give you a good picture.

It really is not. Companies operate on creating profit. Activities are judged on their ROI. Worth is not relevant for the ROI.

That gives you a heat rejection capacity of less than 140 kW (mind you, that is total heat rejection, incl. heat from the sun, support systems etc., only a part of that can be used to cool servers) So you settle for laughably low compute to keep radiator size somewhat reasonable, yet still massive and heavy.

When I tried to install Windows 10 2 years ago on my mini PC it tried to install wifi drivers but failed. Wifi only worked after manually downloading and installing the driver. Various Linux distros were plug and play and wifi worked out of the box.

Total Worth doesn’t matter. What matters is revenue and profit and that is the basis for the fine.

That space data center might end up dumping more waste into the oceans with all thise launches but certainly more into our atmosphere.

Via radiation into space. All you need is a radiator, the weight of a battleship (or worse). Yes, the idea is crazy.

Weight is always the issue with lifting stuff into space. Volume might merely be an additional issue.

You keep ignoring my point but let’s try it with a concrete example:

Sydney-Newcastle: ~190 km project length, incl. 70-155 km tunnels, covering both sides of the urban Sydney area, all underground.

So this project would include one of the most central and also challenging parts of a potential HSR network. Cost estimates are somewhat elusive but I found talk of 90 bn AUD. Now, there is a lot to unpack there.

First of all, when we compare that to the current project Lyon-Torino, technically not HSR but still designed for 220 km/h, comparable to the tunnel section in the Sydney-Newcastle plan. It comes also with 100 km tunnel (much of it an actual base tunnel) and 170 km of non-tunnel parts. Price tag: 11 bn EUR ~ 17 bn AUD. Or let’s look at the 55 km Brenner base tunnel, designed for 250 km/h, one of the longest base tunnels involving very tricky geology. Price tag is similar 8-10 bn EUR. So even if we compare the rough Sydney-Newcastle plan with very expensive and challenging cross-border rail projects, across the Alps, in other high income, high regulation countries, we are talking about multifold higher per km prices. How come? Likely for similar reasons as in the US or Canada, political and legal reasons. At least in the US, the overhead of any rail infrastructure project is enormous and overshadows the actual construction costs. Extreme bureaucracy, very pro-nimbyism laws and the requirement of minimal or even no negative impact on car traffic during construction. This can be seen when we are looking on the tunnel length in the Sydney-Newcastle corridor. What is commonly reported is on the very upper end of tunnel usage. There is a reason for that and that is also political and legal. While highways were bulldozed through urban areas, rail projects are are rather pushed underground on the entire length, not even using any existing corridor on any of it, until the very end of suburbia and even then. Now, one can debate of course pros and cons of that. There are good arguments for the tunnels, also for speed and operation but it adds a lot of cost. However, even if we don’t debate the tunnel length, the costs are astronomically high in comparison to projects in other high income countries, that are not part of the English speaking world.

PS: Even though your own video pretty much is all about the lack of political will and the requirement of it to be at least almost profitable. It also can’t manage without mentioning the oh so low Australian population density, when that does not matter at all. What matters is the corridor and in this corridor with pretty perfect distances of Sydney to Melbourne and Sydney to Brisbane there is a corridor population of 12 mio. That is perfectly fine for such an HSR corridor. I mean the report is contradicting itself when it is first talking about how Sydney-Melbourne is the second busiest aviation corridor in the world and then later talking about how there is no population for HSR, when the HSR would be highly competitive with aviation on such 3-4h corridors.

I am not downvoting for content but debating style. You started off with ad hominem and then added not a single ( or a few) well defined argument but a video with dozens one liner arguments that cannot be addressed without writing half a book.

But maybe I am indeed in the wrong instance for that and it is indeed a wrong expectation on my side.