431–440 of 450 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s not what they are doing > capture heat directly at the source and transport it to outdoor dry coolers, essentially large radiator coils positioned outside the building. The heat goes into the air
>The heat goes into the air Can confirm : I'm reading this from France, we're in the 8th day of the meanest heatwave the country has known since records exist, and it's expected to last two more.
This opens up an interesting synergy: district heating. 45C is low but not unworkable for a district heating loop, and a data center might be able to make a nice pitch to a community if the data center offers to provide heat to a district heating system for free. This brings the value to the local community of a nearby datacenter up from near zero to potentially a few million dollars per year. Summer is still an issu…
What's the problem with skylights?
Skylights also suck because they're exposing the window directly to the sky (and thus rain), whereas conventional windows are somewhat protected by eaves and the fact that the window is vertical so water can't pool on it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a response to the FUD that is water usage in data centers. Data centers don't use a meaningful amount of water when compared to just about any other industrial application, or many recreational ones. Data centers used about 66 billion liters 2023. source: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/32d6m0d1 Golf courses used 2 trillion liters in 2020. We won't even bring up almond production.
The issue is though data centers are being built in areas with scarce water resources and they get prioritized. They still use a lot of water.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They can't make them a little bit bigger? But also I found this interesting image on the scale at hand here of a given launch of starlinks, no clue how many are included in a single launch, and it is a substantial amount of rack space they have been sending up at once: https://i.redd.it/zh7qvyfqgvx21.jpg So to me they have solved the issue of having a space based compute array network interfacing with the earth. They…
But most of that is nothing to do with compute. A rack of servers is all compute. Starlink sats are antennas, RF amplifiers, solar panels, laser links, shielding, even maneuvering thrusters and fuel for those (they could be electrical ion thrusters but they'll still need reaction mass, not sure what type they use). Probably some inertial reaction wheels too, they are used for spacecraft orientation, not positioning.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why, because on board storage is too small and the compute nodes are underpowered? And that can't ever change? A reasonable person doesn't understand technology usually. That is increasingly an understanding left to the wizard class. I mean people make clusters out of raspberry pis and minipcs.
This only makes sense if the compute nodes only become more powerful in space in the future and not also on the ground.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not a counterargument: it's an ad hominem.
How? He carefully examines and actually reads all the papers referenced in the video and shows that they either don’t support Benn’s claims or completely contradict them? Drawing conclusions about Benn Jordan on this basis is not ad hominem. Given the contents of these papers (i read a few of the abstracts), Jordan either didn’t read the papers, didn’t be understand them or else is being disingenuous.
At no point in his video does Benn claim to be representing the consensus. The whole premise of his videos is that he is introducing something for which there is very little consensus! Each paper has its own conclusions, which don't have to be the same as Benn's. This whole thing boils down to an attack on Benn's character ability to draw meaningful conclusions on his own.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This only makes sense if the compute nodes only become more powerful in space in the future and not also on the ground.
The big advantage is if you put it in space, only people with space based capabilities can mess with it. If you build it on the ground, anyone can drive a truck full of explosives into it. Might not matter for most applications, but there are some where it absolutely matters I am sure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How? He carefully examines and actually reads all the papers referenced in the video and shows that they either don’t support Benn’s claims or completely contradict them? Drawing conclusions about Benn Jordan on this basis is not ad hominem. Given the contents of these papers (i read a few of the abstracts), Jordan either didn’t read the papers, didn’t be understand them or else is being disingenuous.
You are arguing that he came to the "wrong" conclusions without actually arguing against those conclusions, or how he got to them. Instead, you are arguing that a reasonable person can come to your conclusions, and therefore Benn is not a reasonable person. At no point in his video does Benn claim to be representing the consensus. The whole premise of his videos is that he is introducing something for which there is…
I am not.
Benn claims that the papers say one thing when in fact, if you read them (even the abstracts), they mostly say the exact opposite. It's that simple.