Ruby?

Thanks, fixed.

Your claimed GPU usage seems really high for a simple spinner, even considering the CPU is pretty old. I wonder if there's some other problem going on with your setup.

I don't think so. This is just what happens when you redraw the screen.

Doing it 30x more frequent than needed costs more, no matter if it's only 1 pixel.

This problem is not isolated to me or to just one machine. Check out the chromium bug about the tab loading spinner, for example. It is a "simple" spinner as well.

Or the Zed editor, which spams screen redraws even when nothing changes at all, so it has high GPU usage for still picture.

It should not cost a visible fraction of CPU/GPU to update a little sprite even at 30fps.

I'm on mobile so I'm not able to check, but can the will-change and contain attributes reduce the cost?

> We also don't see landlords who own their properties outright (and thus don't have mortgage interest costs) charging lower rents than landlords in the neighborhood with identical properties who have mortgages.

Why would they as long as they find a renter? The market always charges the marginal cost.

They will charge the maximum amount possible, no matter what their costs.

And the maximum amount possible is based on the cost of bringing more housing supply to the market aka the marginal cost.

Which comprises

1) Cost of land per year (which won't change as you'd be paying $10k a year tax rather than $10k a year in interest on the loan taken to buy the land)

2) Cost of building per year (which won't change)

As long as the company has a HQ and owners that care about their quality of life, they don’t really gain any extra safety by moving their hardware to space compared to keeping it where they are based.

The distance from earth to the sun is 150 million kilometers and your orbit is probably only a few hundred kilometers up (and realistically it’s sun-synchronous and perpendicular to the earth-sun axis), so the distance change doesn’t really matter.

The argument is that launching and operating those satellites is more expensive than just using the same silicon on the ground.

How sure are you of that? How much does each satellite cost? How much will silicon on the ground cost in 2030?

How can anyone be certain of any of those numbers without (a) knowing how the technology will evolve, and (b) doing the math?

I'm just astounded that people can have such confidence.

We know such thing as physics and economics. That dictate the fundamental limits.

They are showing that space-based DCs only make sense for criminal enterprises. Which probably IS what's going on here.

I don't think that is the argument, or if so it's an odd one because it's just a fact right now. Instead, people are claiming that it will never be feasible from a purely physics standpoint, which is something debatable.

Saying it’s impossible isn’t debatable because it obviously is. What would stop you from a physics standpoint to just launch 100 ISS with Server racks in each? A few kW of installed power in space is already reality, it’s just really expensive.

I think you misunderstand the argument of the people worrying about cooling. I don’t think most people think it’s literally physically impossible, they just think that this will be the thing that makes it economically uncompetitive. It’s a combined argument.

That may be the argument, but it's a dumb argument. Most of the cost is going to go to chips, solar panels, and launch. Radiators are probably one of the cheapest parts of the satellite: it's a hunk of metal with some pumps for liquid cooling.

People use that argument because it takes zero thought to make and significant effort to refute.

People use that argument because one of the chief bullshit arguments put forward by proponents of space based datacentres is "space is cold", when what they actually mean is "space lacks the possibility of using relatively efficient conductive cooling, so we need to expensively launch large amounts of additional mass to use radiative cooling, consider the extent to which we can shield our miles of active cooling loops from impact, and under current plans all of this mass must be replaced on the same cycles as the chips"

"Space is cold" is classic zero effort to make, significant effort to refute stuff: proponents imply complete nonsense about vacuums being optimal for cooling and anyone who understands why this is a lie to gull retail investors ends up getting bogged down in "sure, but Boltzmann equations proving it's prohibitively expensive doesn't prove it isn't possible"...

Again you’re missing the combined argument, the cooling will increase launch costs because your hunk of metal will increase the weight of the satellite.

You can use heatpumps to increase radiator temperature but then you need a heatpump and need to power it. But the principle is sound.

> For all we know matrix multiplications are a faster way to generate

“are” or “could be”?

Maybe Claude is RLHFd primarily on texts by mpoteat and that’s why it talks this way

I know it's a joke but if you look at many of the key AI researchers papers (written pre-LLM mass adoption) you can see some similarities with how LLMs structure their output.

I'd love to do some stylometry on this...