test

6 months ago

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.

GIF

test

6 months ago

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.

GIF

test

6 months ago

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.

GIF
  • About
  • A place to contribute ideas about social engineering, governance, trust systems, communication, game theory and anything else that assists the development of actual methods, software or systems that solve outstanding problems related to self organizing people.

    This group is for people who want to build solutions, and have knowledge and skills that have value for that. It isn't for everyone. Memes, snark, trolling, religiously held beliefs that aren't generative.
    ..A warm introvert's welcome!