Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google to pay SpaceX $920M a month for compute capacity at xAI data centers

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

971–980 of 1001 posts

Re: Google to pay SpaceX $920M a month for compute capacity at xAI data centers

#971

Post by kennywinker »

ACCount37 wrote: post #882
kennywinker wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, how do you cool servers in space then? Evaporative cooling is the way it happens down on earth - and that shuttles h2o molecules from dense useful clumps like aquifers and rivers to a less useful form spread out in the air. But evaporating h2o isn’t an option in space afaik - since there’s a shortage of air to take up the h2o. In fact I think radiative cooling is the only actual option in space.

Radiative cooling. When something gets hot, it begins to radiate that heat away - black body radiation. Fucking hell - do you all think ISS is cooled by hopes and prayers? Starlink V3 sats have to dump ~20kW of pure waste heat just to exist. Going from that to the stated 100kW is an engineering task, not some sort of impossible arcane rite.

The ISS isn’t supposed to be a profitable business, and it isn’t competing with terrestrial ISS’ that can use evaporative cooling.

Re: Google to pay SpaceX $920M a month for compute capacity at xAI data centers

#972

Post by boppo1 »

WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #338
dawnerd wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First step would be to prevent the regulators from profiting to begin with.

In my experience, if we don't (meaningfully) root out corruption and ineptitude, we will continue to be governed+leveraged by one/both.

Can't root it out, it's part of the system. Sortition is the best we can hope for now.

Re: Google to pay SpaceX $920M a month for compute capacity at xAI data centers

#973

Post by Imustaskforhelp »

trollbridge wrote: post #794
Imustaskforhelp wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are asking for government and research needs rather than commercial then ISRO (Indian space research organization) beats SpaceX That being said, ISRO focuses more on research and scientific world as compared to the commercial world but they were the least expensive option out there before SpaceX and the only differential which causes the pricing is actually re-usability aspect of SpaceX rockets/launchers and I…

So, in other words, launch is not actually a commodotised thing yet and there's nobody else out there that can actually beat SpaceX on price.

If you want to invest into a company that barely does space at 10% and is 90% a datacenter Reits essentially at a P/E ratio of 90 whereas others have around 10 so you are gonna overpay for 10 times or a magnitude more

Then sure, yes you are correct.

https://martinalderson.com/posts/xais-new-rental-business/: seems to be a post on the frontpage of HN at the moment on what I am currently saying.

Re: Google to pay SpaceX $920M a month for compute capacity at xAI data centers

#974

Post by mannanj »

tristanj wrote: post #968
mannanj wrote: post #930

Earlier quoted context omitted.

hi I said this: >fraud is any intentional misrepresentation Did you not read my post? It looks to very inline with what you stated fraud is in your many definitions. Clearly I read the definition, I was aiming to simplify to make dialog possible. My definition still aligns with yours. And I still see it as fraud, and so would others. Seems you don't. and thats ok. To say I should read fraud as though I couldn't look…

No, your definition does not align with mine at all. All elements I listed must be present for it to constitute as fraud. You cherrypicked the first part of the definition and then ignored the rest. The legal requirement for fraud is far stricter than the one you came up with.

Ah I see. Okay. Sorry to have been guilty I see this:

> Fraud is:

> * an intentional misrepresentation of fact, whether by words or conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed;

> * made by one person to another;

> * with knowledge of its falsity;

> * for the purpose of inducing the other person to act, and upon which the other person relies;

> * resulting in injury or damage.

Mariam Webster defines Fraud as:

> specifically : an act, expression, omission, or concealment calculated to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right

I think maybe you're fixating and cherry-picking too, on "legal" and court-found fraud specifically for what would lead to damages in court found on the said companies.

I am not focusing on what would be legally enforceable and referencable in a court of law. If most people would look at a definition of fraud, and then look at whats happening here, and see it as fraudulent, that if I'm one of those people I'm to call it fraud. And in this case our sample size is just 2: you and I. So 50% is what I'm operating off of as my sample size (ah self selecting, all the biases etc).

Though since the reality we find ourselves is is one where large corporate entities get bail outs, get to set their own rules and bend the law anyway, I think maybe we should not bias towards whats "legally" proved as fraud in the court room.

Thank you for engaging me here. This has been fun and insightful. Please forgive my hasty generalizations and any hostility I inadvertently sent your way.

Re: Google to pay SpaceX $920M a month for compute capacity at xAI data centers

#975

Post by cherry_tree »

gitaarik wrote: post #941
cherry_tree wrote: post #938

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your replies are non-sequitors to the discussion in this thread. Statement “I use grok to consume current events” Response “grok is not a reliable source for information, especially current events or politics” Your response “but Gemini generated images that right wingers didn’t like” Ok? Are those images the news? Is that a way to consume current events? Do you think I’m a proponent of people using LLMs to digest cur…

You gave the argument that Grok isn't trustable because of their nazi fails. My argument was that you're maybe a bit biased, because similar issues have happened with other prominent companies. Both companies corrected themselves on the issues. I don't think your argument has much ground right now. Grok might be leaning into a certain direction, but you can say that about any AI or news station.

@dang can you explain how the comment below me got marked dead? How many flags did it receive? By whom? This is genuinely very concerning, this comment is not off topic or in anyway deserving to be flagged. Do you or the other moderator disagree with that statement?

Here is the text of the comment in question:

“As someone stumbling across this thread: the idea that, in regards to bias, a real person might actually consider these two events in any way comparable is honestly leaving me stunned. I can't find the right words to describe how sickening it is to see Nazism being treated as just as banally acceptable as any other political direction.”

Re: Google to pay SpaceX $920M a month for compute capacity at xAI data centers

#976

Post by dang »

cherry_tree wrote: post #975
gitaarik wrote: post #941

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You gave the argument that Grok isn't trustable because of their nazi fails. My argument was that you're maybe a bit biased, because similar issues have happened with other prominent companies. Both companies corrected themselves on the issues. I don't think your argument has much ground right now. Grok might be leaning into a certain direction, but you can say that about any AI or news station.

@dang can you explain how the comment below me got marked dead? How many flags did it receive? By whom? This is genuinely very concerning, this comment is not off topic or in anyway deserving to be flagged. Do you or the other moderator disagree with that statement? Here is the text of the comment in question: “As someone stumbling across this thread: the idea that, in regards to bias, a real person might actually co…

Moderation on HN doesn't have to do with whether we agree or disagree with a post. If it did, most of the posts here would be dead.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48451979 was classified by our software as genai. That's not allowed on HN - see https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html#generated and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47340079.

All such classifiers are imperfect, of course, but we have no choice but to use them because HN is being inundated with content that has been either generated or edited by LLMs, and the community feels strongly about this.

I've unkilled the comment now, although its information/indignation ratio is low enough that I would not call it a good comment for HN, and no, that doesn't mean I disagree with it.

While I have you: can you also please stop breaking the site guidelines, such as by posting flamebait, snark, and using HN for ideological battle? You've been doing this repeatedly, (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48433250, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48420491 in this thread, as well as crossing into personal attack elsewhere).

We're trying for something different here. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

Re: Google to pay SpaceX $920M a month for compute capacity at xAI data centers

#977

Post by dang »

cherry_tree wrote: post #870
gitaarik wrote: post #835

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's maybe a bit of an unfair, out-of-balance comment. Google Gemini had it's own fails on the other side of the extreme. Both have corrected themselves. Don't keep coming up with old stuff.

[flagged]

Can you please see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48466218 and respect the site guidelines when posting here, regardless of how wrong anyone else is or you feel they are?

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Google to pay SpaceX $920M a month for compute capacity at xAI data centers

#978

Post by [deleted] »

dang wrote: post #976
cherry_tree wrote: post #975

Earlier quoted context omitted.

@dang can you explain how the comment below me got marked dead? How many flags did it receive? By whom? This is genuinely very concerning, this comment is not off topic or in anyway deserving to be flagged. Do you or the other moderator disagree with that statement? Here is the text of the comment in question: “As someone stumbling across this thread: the idea that, in regards to bias, a real person might actually co…

Moderation on HN doesn't have to do with whether we agree or disagree with a post. If it did, most of the posts here would be dead. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48451979 was classified by our software as genai. That's not allowed on HN - see https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html#generated and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47340079 . All such classifiers are imperfect, of course, but we have…

[deleted]

Re: Google to pay SpaceX $920M a month for compute capacity at xAI data centers

#979

Post by gitaarik »

Timon3 wrote: post #967
gitaarik wrote: post #941

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You gave the argument that Grok isn't trustable because of their nazi fails. My argument was that you're maybe a bit biased, because similar issues have happened with other prominent companies. Both companies corrected themselves on the issues. I don't think your argument has much ground right now. Grok might be leaning into a certain direction, but you can say that about any AI or news station.

As someone stumbling across this thread: the idea that, in regards to bias, a real person might actually consider these two events in any way comparable is honestly leaving me stunned. I can't find the right words to describe how sickening it is to see Nazism being treated as just as banally acceptable as any other political direction.

You're misreading. Nazism isn't being treated as acceptable, neither is wokeism. Both companies have apologized for these incidents, and have addressed the problems.

Re: Google to pay SpaceX $920M a month for compute capacity at xAI data centers

#980

Post by cherry_tree »

dang wrote: post #976
cherry_tree wrote: post #975

Earlier quoted context omitted.

@dang can you explain how the comment below me got marked dead? How many flags did it receive? By whom? This is genuinely very concerning, this comment is not off topic or in anyway deserving to be flagged. Do you or the other moderator disagree with that statement? Here is the text of the comment in question: “As someone stumbling across this thread: the idea that, in regards to bias, a real person might actually co…

Moderation on HN doesn't have to do with whether we agree or disagree with a post. If it did, most of the posts here would be dead. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48451979 was classified by our software as genai. That's not allowed on HN - see https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html#generated and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47340079 . All such classifiers are imperfect, of course, but we have…

I wasn’t asking if you agreed with the comment in question but in my statement that there is no obvious reason in the content that it should be flagged; it seems you did agree since you restored the comment. Thanks for your feedback and attention.
Post reply on HN