What? No, they serve two totally different purposes and have significantly different requirements.
We don’t have eyeglasses on space based telescope guy there is no human up there looking through the telescope and writing down what they are finding.
Mine? Or “your” as in all of us on lemmy, which includes you? Again, nobody in this thread made that argument, nor defended it, nor defended any other commenters who did - and you’re still acting like a complete dick about it.
Yes YOUR tribalistic bullshit. You lying dog that is what this whole thread has been about it isn’t my fault you didn’t realise you were assaulting real science with your tribalism.
nobody in this thread made that argument, nor defended it, nor defended any other commenters who did
Liar everyone in this thread made that argument including you it was the first thing you said. Apply that same logic to putting telescopes in space they aren’t exactly the most efficient cost effective forms of science shit is difficult. Your entire reasoning that it is not cost effective and is difficult is anti-science. If you weren’t being a tribalistic asshole you wouldn’t care but because the AI is against your tribe and AI also happens to need datacenters you do care. I cared long before AI fuck you.
Maybe you are under some impression that data is hoarded and not triaged. Onsite processing would be a leap in technology.
Liar everyone in this thread made that argument including you it was the first thing you said.
OK, quote me. Quote any of my comments in this thread where I argued that putting data centers in space is a bad idea because there is no air in space. Now who’s lying?
Apply that same logic to putting telescopes in space they aren’t exactly the most efficient cost effective forms of science shit is difficult.
Putting telescopes in space solves a particularly difficult problem. Space telescopes have the advantage of missing that thing you keep hallucinating everyone here is arguing about - air. Because there’s no atmospheric distortion, space telescopes are able to get images with orders of magnitude greater clarity. The heat dissipation problem is a tiny fraction compared to a data center, because there are (much) fewer components on a telescope that generate heat. The two things are not the same.
When putting telescopes on earth, there is no way of dodging the fact that there is miles of atmosphere above it that cause distortion. There is no engineering around that. There are of course mitigations, but those are hurdles that are entirely skipped by putting them in space.
Data centers have no such need. So what problem is solved by putting them in space? Why would you even want to? There are millions of square miles of earth to put them - where it would be much, much easier and cheaper to cool them, access them, power them, and maintain them.
If you weren’t being a tribalistic asshole you wouldn’t care but because the AI is against your tribe and AI also happens to need datacenters you do care. I cared long before AI fuck you.
Can you quote where I said anything about AI? What leads you to believe I am against AI, or data centers? The only thing I’ve argued against is putting data centers in space. You’re the only one bringing up AI.
It sure seems like you very desperately need to be a martyr, and that you need to see yourself as a champion for science when everyone around you is anti-science. That is not scientific, rational thinking. Taking the argument that “putting a data center in space is hard for many reasons” and reducing it to “we can’t put data centers in space because there’s no air” is dishonest. It’s a straw man.
This is now clearly a psychological issue with you, perhaps a psychiatric issue. You’re angry, and you need to be angry and don’t actually care what people are saying - you’re going to argue against them because they must be anti-AI and anti-science.
Buddy I conflated you with everyone else, your tribe. I am not going to study you and write you a personal essay get the fuck over yourself. You were part of the crowd take responsibility for being associated with them. And you’re switching shit around I am just going to ignore that you loser.
you very desperately need to be a martyr, and that you need to see yourself as a champion for science
I eye fucked your intellectual identity and you took 10 hours to think of something this was it. I get it, it sounded big in your head but it’s a little too big, I am arguing against you on lemmy lol
You’re clearly not willing to engage in rational discussion, but instead you’re deliberately grouping everyone who disagrees with you into a single group, as if I was conspiring with other commenters just to fuck with you, and throwing personal attacks. You’ve made many unfounded assumptions about me, and are obviously going to continue doing so. You aren’t really arguing so much as just insulting people. You’ve made 0 factual assertions and you’ve failed to respond to every one of my questions. Good luck.
We don’t have eyeglasses on space based telescope guy there is no human up there looking through the telescope and writing down what they are finding.
Yes YOUR tribalistic bullshit. You lying dog that is what this whole thread has been about it isn’t my fault you didn’t realise you were assaulting real science with your tribalism.
Ah, OK, I think I’m starting to understand the problem here.
What exactly do you believe I’m lying about? What evidence do you have that I’m lying?
In what way am I assaulting science, or engaging in tribalism?
Liar everyone in this thread made that argument including you it was the first thing you said. Apply that same logic to putting telescopes in space they aren’t exactly the most efficient cost effective forms of science shit is difficult. Your entire reasoning that it is not cost effective and is difficult is anti-science. If you weren’t being a tribalistic asshole you wouldn’t care but because the AI is against your tribe and AI also happens to need datacenters you do care. I cared long before AI fuck you.
Maybe you are under some impression that data is hoarded and not triaged. Onsite processing would be a leap in technology.
OK, quote me. Quote any of my comments in this thread where I argued that putting data centers in space is a bad idea because there is no air in space. Now who’s lying?
Putting telescopes in space solves a particularly difficult problem. Space telescopes have the advantage of missing that thing you keep hallucinating everyone here is arguing about - air. Because there’s no atmospheric distortion, space telescopes are able to get images with orders of magnitude greater clarity. The heat dissipation problem is a tiny fraction compared to a data center, because there are (much) fewer components on a telescope that generate heat. The two things are not the same.
When putting telescopes on earth, there is no way of dodging the fact that there is miles of atmosphere above it that cause distortion. There is no engineering around that. There are of course mitigations, but those are hurdles that are entirely skipped by putting them in space.
Data centers have no such need. So what problem is solved by putting them in space? Why would you even want to? There are millions of square miles of earth to put them - where it would be much, much easier and cheaper to cool them, access them, power them, and maintain them.
Can you quote where I said anything about AI? What leads you to believe I am against AI, or data centers? The only thing I’ve argued against is putting data centers in space. You’re the only one bringing up AI.
It sure seems like you very desperately need to be a martyr, and that you need to see yourself as a champion for science when everyone around you is anti-science. That is not scientific, rational thinking. Taking the argument that “putting a data center in space is hard for many reasons” and reducing it to “we can’t put data centers in space because there’s no air” is dishonest. It’s a straw man.
This is now clearly a psychological issue with you, perhaps a psychiatric issue. You’re angry, and you need to be angry and don’t actually care what people are saying - you’re going to argue against them because they must be anti-AI and anti-science.
Buddy I conflated you with everyone else, your tribe. I am not going to study you and write you a personal essay get the fuck over yourself. You were part of the crowd take responsibility for being associated with them. And you’re switching shit around I am just going to ignore that you loser.
I eye fucked your intellectual identity and you took 10 hours to think of something this was it. I get it, it sounded big in your head but it’s a little too big, I am arguing against you on lemmy lol
Ok. I hope you get the help you need.
You’re clearly not willing to engage in rational discussion, but instead you’re deliberately grouping everyone who disagrees with you into a single group, as if I was conspiring with other commenters just to fuck with you, and throwing personal attacks. You’ve made many unfounded assumptions about me, and are obviously going to continue doing so. You aren’t really arguing so much as just insulting people. You’ve made 0 factual assertions and you’ve failed to respond to every one of my questions. Good luck.
You opened accusing me of a fallacy then doing that same fallacy you get what you pay for.