So, Antarctica.
Mcmurdo station offically has around 1k-2k people stationed there. That is probably 10x under the real number. A typical company will offer between 2%-10% of its size in new jobs. That can be growth, focus shift or turn over.
This is a listing of Jobs for McMurdo: https://aq.indeed.com/jobs?q=a....ll&l=Antarctica&
That is consistent with a company of 14k-35k employees.
So, I did some analysis on where the location of skynet will be.
I started with these 5 locals: ant/arctic, ocean, desert, river, space. Then I ranked them in 6 categories/features. Finally I added the rankings to get an overall location fitness.
[energy availability]
river,space,desert,ocean,arctic
[absolute cooling]
space,arctic,ocean,river,desert
[heat transfer]
arctic, river, space,ocean,desert
[construction cost]
desert,river,arctic,ocean,space
[connectivity]
river,space,ocean,desert,arctic
[defensibility]
arctic,space,ocean,desert,river
naive category ranking results:
river 21, space 21, arctic 19, ocean 15, desert 14
Available energy and cost to build are probably the most important categories, so I doubled their weighting value. Deserts improved quite a bit and was the only ordering change:
river 30, space 26, arctic 23, desert 22, ocean 19
Surprisingly, rivers appear to be the best place to find mega data/computation centers. I had expected the arctic to be better, but lack of energy and cost to build hurt it.
I can safely say that we will see massive data/compute centers (distributed) in orbit. Musk/Starlink has no doubt already reached the same conculsion, so this analysis probably just 'unveils' a hidden function of Starlink that is already implemented. I would guess that each satellite has ~1000x the processing and storage needed to perform their 'official' function.
Fun fact: The arctic is 'colder'* than space.
I realized that when doing this analysis.
So, I did some analysis on where the location of skynet will be.
I started with these 5 locals: ant/arctic, ocean, desert, river, space. Then I ranked them in 6 categories/features. Finally I added the rankings to get an overall location fitness.
[energy availability]
river,space,desert,ocean,arctic
[absolute cooling]
space,arctic,ocean,river,desert
[heat transfer]
arctic, river, space,ocean,desert
[construction cost]
desert,river,arctic,ocean,space
[connectivity]
river,space,ocean,desert,arctic
[defensibility]
arctic,space,ocean,desert,river
naive category ranking results:
river 21, space 21, arctic 19, ocean 15, desert 14
Available energy and cost to build are probably the most important categories, so I doubled their weighting value. Deserts improved quite a bit and was the only ordering change:
river 30, space 26, arctic 23, desert 22, ocean 19
Surprisingly, rivers appear to be the best place to find mega data/computation centers. I had expected the arctic to be better, but lack of energy and cost to build hurt it.
I can safely say that we will see massive data/compute centers (distributed) in orbit. Musk/Starlink has no doubt already reached the same conculsion, so this analysis probably just 'unveils' a hidden function of Starlink that is already implemented. I would guess that each satellite has ~1000x the processing and storage needed to perform their 'official' function.
Fun fact: The arctic is 'colder'* than space.
I realized that when doing this analysis.