I'm not sure that a prompt injection secure LLM is even possible anymore than a human that isn't susceptible to social engineering can exist. The issues right now are that LLMs are much more trusting than humans, and that one strategy works on a whole host of instances of the model
It's like this. Everything about operating a datacenter in space is more difficult than it is to operate one on earth.
1. The capital costs are higher, you have to expend tons of energy to put it into orbit
2. The maintenance costs are higher because the lifetime of satellites is pretty low
3. Refurbishment is next to impossible
4. Networking is harder, either you are ok with a relatively small datacenter or you have to deal with radio or laser links between satellites
For starlink this isn't as important. Starlink provides something that can't really be provided any other way, but even so just the US uses 176 terawatt-hours of power for data centers so starlink is 1/400th of that assuming your estimate is accurate (and I'm not sure it is, does it account for the night cycle?)
What about sourcing and the cost of energy? Solar Panels more efficient, no bad weather, and 100% in sunlight (depending on orbit) in space. Not that it makes up for the items you listed, but it may not be true that everything is more difficult in space.
Let's say with no atmosphere and no night cycle, a space solar panel is 5x better. Deploying 5x as many solar panels on the ground is still going to come in way under the budget of the space equivalent.
And it's not the same at all. 5x the solar panels on the ground means 5x the power output in the day, still 0 at night. So you'd need batteries. If you add in bad weather and winter, you may need battery capacity for days, weeks or even months, shifting the cost to batteries while still relying on nuclear of fossil backups in case your battery dies or some 3/4/5-sigma weather event outside what you designed for occurs.
> Or you put the data centers at different points on earth?
> Or you float them on the ocean circumnavigating the earth?
What that does have to do with anything? If you want to solar-power them, you still are subject to terrestrial effects. You can't just shut off a data center at night.
> Or we put the datacenters on giant Zeppelins orbiting above the clouds?
They'd have to fly at 50,000+ ft to be clear of clouds, I doubt you can lift heavy payloads this high using bouyancy given the low air density. High risk to people on the ground in case of failure because no re-entry.
> If we are doing fantasy tech solutions to space problems, why not for a million other more sensible options?
How is this a fantasy? With Starlink operational, this hardly seems a mere 'fantasy'.
A capacity problem can be solved by having another data center the other side of the earth.
If it's that the power cycling causes equipment to fail earlier, then that can be addressed far more easily than radiation hardening all equipment so that it can function in space.
Because GPUs are expensive, much more expensive than launch costs if they get starship to the low end of the range they’re aiming for, and you want your expensive equipment running as much as possible to amortize the cost down?
But the GPUs on the ground will be a lot cheaper to manufacture as they don't have to deal with space conditions.
It seems a real stretch to me to assume that costs for putting GPUs into space can ever come within a factor of 2-3 of putting them on the ground, even neglecting launch costs.
just take cost of getting kg in space and compare it to how much solar panel will generate
Current satellites get around 150W/kg from solar panels. Cost of launching 1kg to space is ~$2000. So we're at $13.3(3)/Watt. We need to double it because same amount need to be dissipated so let's round it to $27
One NVidia GB200 rack is ~120kW. To just power it, you need to send $3 240 000 worth of payload into space. Then you need to send additional $3 106 000 (rack of them is 1553kg) worth of servers. Plus some extra for piping
Over 10 years ago, the best satellites had 500W/kg [2]. Modern solar panels that are designed to be light are at 200g per sqm [1]. That's 5sqm per kg. One sqm generates ca. 500W. So we're at 2.5kW per kg. Some people claim 4.3kW/kg possible.
Starship launch costs have a $100/kg goal, so we'd be at $40 / kW, or $4800 for a 120kW cluster.
120kW is 1GWh annually, costs you around $130k in Europe per year to operate. ROI 14 days. Even if launch costs aren't that low in the beginning and there's a lot more stuff to send up, your ROI might be a year or so, which is still good.
Solar panels in space are more efficient, but on the ground we have dead dinosaurs we can burn. The efficiency gain is also more than offset by the fact that you can't replace a worn out panel. A few years into the life of your satellite its power production drops.
Terrestrial data centers save money and recoup costs by salvaging and recycling components, so what you're saying here is that space-based datacenters are even less competitive than we previously estimated.
No idea how quickly they wear out in space with 24x7 irradiance and space temps, but on the earth, they’re at something like 80% capacity after 25 years. So seems like you could control how long they have via overpanelling?
... if you completely ignore the difficulty of getting them up there. I'd be interested to see a comparison between the amount of energy required to get a solar panel into space, and the amount of energy it produces during its lifetime there. I wouldn't be surprised if it were a net negative; getting mass into orbit requires a tremendous amount of energy, and putting it there with a rocket is not an efficient process.
The cost might be the draw (if there is one). Big tech isn't afraid of throwing money at problems, but the AI folk and financiers are afraid of waiting and uncertainty. A satellite is crazy expensive but throwing more money at it gets you more satellites.
At the end of the day I don't really care either way. It ain't my money, and their money isn't going to get back into the economy by sitting in a brokerage portfolio. To get them to spend money this is as good a way as any other, I guess. At least it helps fund a little spaceflight and satellite R&D on the way.
> The maintenance costs are higher because the lifetime of satellites is pretty low
Presumably they're planning on doing in-orbit propellant transfer to reboost the satellites so that they don't have to let their GPUs crash into the ocean...
If anything, considering this + limited satellite lifetime, it almost looks like a ploy to deal with the current issue of warehouses full of GPUs and the questions about overbuild with just the currently actively installed GPUs (which is a fraction of the total that Nvidia has promised to deliver within a year or two).
Just shoot it into space where it's all inaccessible and will burn out within 5 years, forcing a continuous replacement scheme and steady contracts with Nvidia and the like to deliver the next generation at the exact same scale, forever
> Presumably they're planning on doing in-orbit propellant transfer to reboost the satellites so that they don't have to let their GPUs crash into the ocean
Hell, you're going to lose some fraction of chips to entropy every year. What if you could process those into reaction mass?
I believe that a modern GPU will burn out immediately. Chips for space are using ancient process nodes with chunky sized components so that they are more resilient to radiation. Deploying a 3nm process into space seems unlikely to work unless you surround it with a foot of lead.
Hah, kill three birds with one stone? The satellites double up as propellant depots for other space missions, that just happen to have GPUs inside? And maybe use droplet radiators to expel the low grade heat from the propellant. I wonder if that can be made safe at all. They use propellant to cool the engine skins so... maybe?
You're describing cryogenic fuels there and dumping heat into them. Dumping heat (sparks, electricity) into liquid oxygen would not necessarily be the best of ideas.
Dumping heat into liquid hydrogen wouldn't be explosive, but rather exacerbate the problem of boil off that is already one of the "this isn't going to work well" problems that needs to be solved for space fuel depots.
> Large upper-stage rocket engines generally use a cryogenic fuel like liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen (LOX) as an oxidizer because of the large specific impulse possible, but must carefully consider a problem called "boil off", or the evaporation of the cryogenic propellant. The boil off from only a few days of delay may not allow sufficient fuel for higher orbit injection, potentially resulting in a mission abort.
They've already got the problem of that the fuel is boiled off in a matter of days. This is not a long term solution for a place to dump waste heat. Furthermore, it needs to be at cryogenic temperatures for it to be used by the spacecraft that the fuel depot is going to refuel.
> In a 2010 NASA study, an additional flight of an Ares V heavy launch vehicle was required to stage a US government Mars reference mission due to 70 tons of boiloff, assuming 0.1% boiloff/day for hydrolox propellant. The study identified the need to decrease the design boiloff rate by an order of magnitude or more.
0.1% boiloff/day is considered an order of magnitude to large now. That's not a place to shunt waste heat.
This brings a whole new dimension to that joke about how our software used to leak memory, then file descriptors, then ec2 instances, and soon we'll be leaking entire data centers. So essentially you're saying - let's convert this into a feature.
Reminds me of the proposal to deorbit end of life satellites by puncturing their lithium batteries :)
The physics of consuming bits of old chip in an inefficient plasma thruster probably work, as do the crawling robots and crushers needed for orbital disassembly, but we're a few years away yet. And whilst on orbit chip replacement is much more mass efficient than replacing the whole spacecraft, radiators and all, it's also a nontrivial undertaking
>1. The capital costs are higher, you have to expend tons of energy to put it into orbit
putting 1KW of solar on land - $2K, putting it into orbit on Starship (current ground-based heavy solar panels, 40kg for 4m2 of 1KW in space) - anywhere between $400 and $4K.
Add to that that the costs on Earth will only be growing, while costs in space will be falling.
Ultimately Starship's costs will come down to the bare cost of fuel + oxidizer, 20kg per 1kg in LEO, i.e. less than $10. And if they manage streamlined operations and high reuse. Yet even with $100/kg, it is still better in space than on the ground.
>That would make your solar panel (40kg) around $60K to put into space.
with the GPU costing the same, it would only double the capex.
>Even being generous and assuming you could get it to $100 per kg that's still $4000
noise compare to the main cost - GPUs.
>There's a lot of land in the middle of nowhere that is going to be cheaper than sending shit to space.
Cheapness of location of your major investment - GPUs - may as well happen to be secondary to other considerations - power/cooling capacity stable availability, jurisdiction, etc.
This is the big thing, but Elon's child porn generator in orbit will be subject to US jurisdiction, just as much as if they were in Alaska. I guess he can avoid state law.
If jurisdiction is key, you can float a DC in international waters on a barge flying the flag of Panama or similar flag of convenience which you can pretty much buy at this scale. Pick a tin-pot country, fling a few million to the dictator, and you're set - with far less jurisdiction problems than a US, Russia, France launched satellite.
Can only speculate out of thin air - B200 and Ryzen 9950x made on the same process and have 11x difference in die size. 11 Ryzens would cost $6K, and with 200Gb RAM - $8K. Googling brings that the B200 cost or production is $6400. That matches the numbers from the Ryzen based estimate above (Ryzen numbers is retail, yet it has higher yield, so balance). So, i'd guess that given Google scale a TPU similar to B200 should be $6K-$10K.
I think the disconnect is that with starship they’re targeting >200 tons/200,000 kg and $2m-$10m/launch, so the very optimistic case is more like $10/kg. Also, the production of a panel in sun sync orbit is many times one on the ground, doesn’t suffer seasonality/weather, and doesn’t require battery storage for smoothing/time shifting, so you’d need to deploy many times the number of panels on earth. Our home array in North America over the course of the year generates something like 1/7th of its theoretical capacity, overproduces in the summer, and underproduces in the winter.
> putting 1KW of solar on land - $2K, putting it into orbit on Starship (current ground-based heavy solar panels, 40kg for 4m2 of 1KW in space) - anywhere between $400 and $4K.
What starship? The fantasy rocket Musk has been promising for 10 years or the real one that has thus far delivered only one banana worth of payload into orbit?
You are presented with a factual, verifiable, statement that starship has been promised for years and that all that's been delivered is something capable of sending a banana to LEO. Wayyyy overdue too.
You meet this with "well, once it works, it'll be amazing and you'll be queuing up"? How very very musky!
I have no idea if SpaceX will ever make the upper stage fully reusable. The space shuttle having existed isn't an existence proof, given the cost of repairs needed between missions.
However, with Starship SpaceX has both done more and less than putting a banana in orbit. Less, because it's never once been a true orbit; more, because these are learn-by-doing tests, all the reporting seems to be in agreement that it could already deliver useful mass to orbit if they wanted it to.
But without actually solving full reusability for the upper stage, this doesn't really have legs. Starship is cheap enough to build they can waste loads of them for this kind of testing, but not cheap enough for plans such as these to make sense if they're disposable.
It is SpaceX/Elon who bet billions on that yadda-yadda, not me. I wrote "If" for $10/kg. I'm sure though that they would easily yadda-yadda under sub-$100/kg - which is $15M per flight. And even with those $100/kg the datacenters in space still make sense as comparable to ground based and providing the demand for the huge Starship launch capacity.
A datacenter costs ~$1000/ft^2. How much equipment per square foot is there? say 100kg (1 ton per rack plus hallway). Which is $1000 to put into orbit on Starship at $100/kg. At sub-$50/kg, you can put into orbit all the equipment plus solar panels and it would still be cheaper than on the ground.
It looks like you’re comparing the cost of installing solar panels on the ground with the cost of just transporting them to orbit. You can’t just toss raw solar panels out of a cargo bay.
The bean counters at NVidia recently upped the expected lifecycle from 5 years to 6. On paper, you are expected now to get 6 years out of a GPU for datacenter use, not 3-5.
Compare the cost of a RAD750 (the processor on the JWST) to its non rad hardened variant. Additionally, consider the processing power of that system to modern AI demands.
I just calculated the potential weight of solar cells in space. Can't say about cost. Idea is mot of the weight of panel is because of glass/plastic protection on top and frame, these are there to protect from rain, hail, wind and dust. In space the elements it will need protection from will be different. I could be completely off but have no claims on cost and feasibility of this.
A solar panel deployed to space isn't deployed in its open / unframed configuration. Rather, it's sent in a way that is folded up into a compact volume and then unfolds into the full size.
You'll note that there is still a frame that it gets unfolded with and that you've got the additional mechanical apparatus to do the unfurling (and the human there to fix it if there are problems.
> Starting with the Enhanced variant, the solar panels were also upgraded to the UltraFlex, an accordion fanfold array, and the fuel load was increased to 1,218 kilograms (2,685 lb).
> In 2011, Orbital replaced Dutch Space on the project and gave ATK’s space components division, which was already supplying the substrates for Dutch Space’s Orion solar panels, a $20 million deal to provide UltraFlex arrays for later Cygnus flights.
> Everything about operating a datacenter in space is more difficult than it is to operate one on earth
Minus one big one: permitting. Every datacentre I know going up right now is spending 90% of their bullshit budget on battlig state and local governments.
But since building a datacenter almost anywhere on the planet is more convenient than outer space, surely you can find some suitable location/government. Or put it on a boat, which is still 100 times more sensible than outer space.
> since building a datacenter almost anywhere on the planet is more convenient than outer space, surely you can find some suitable location/government
More convenient. But I'm balancing the cost equation. There are regimes where this balances. I don't think we're there yet. But it's irrational to reject it completely.
> Or put it on a boat, which is still 100 times more sensible than outer space
Surely given starlinks 5ish year deorbit plan, you could design a platform to hold up for that long... And instead of burning the whole thing up you could just refurbish it when you swap out the actual rack contents, considering that those probably have an even shorter edge lifespan.
Starlinks are built to safely burn up on re-entry. A big reusable platform will have to work quite differently to never uncontrollably re-enter, or it might kill someone by high velocity debris on impact.
This adds weight and complexity and likely also forces a much higher orbit.
I can’t wait for all the heavy metals that are put into GPUs and other electronics showering down on us constantly. Wonder why the billionaires have their bunkers.
> If you think there is no papework necessary for launching satellites, you are very very wrong
I would be. And granted, I know a lot more about launching satellites than building anything. But it would take me longer to get a satellite in the air than the weeks it will take me to fix a broken shelf in my kitchen. And hyperscalers are connecting in months, not weeks.
> when he talks about subject outside of his domain
Hate to burst your bubble. But I have a background in aerospace engineering. I’ve financed stuff in this field, from launch vehicles to satellites. And I own stakes in a decent chunk of the plays in this field. Both for and against this hypothesis.
So yeah, I’ll hold my ground on having reasonable basis for being sceptical of blanket dismissals of this idea as much as I dismiss certainty in its success.
There are a lot of cheap shots around AI and aerospace. Some are coming from Musk. A lot are coming from one-liner pros. HN is pretty good at filtering those to get the good stuff, which is anyone doing real math.
That actually confirms what the other commenter said.
Your assertion was "Every datacentre I know going up right now is spending 90% of their bullshit budget on battlig state and local governments" and you haven't demonstrated any expertise is building data centers.
You've given a very extraordinary claim about DC costs, with no evidence presented, nor expertise cited to sway our priors.
> Your assertion was "Every datacentre I know going up right now is spending 90% of their bullshit budget on battlig state and local governments" and you haven't demonstrated any expertise is building data centers
I confirmed "I’ve financed stuff in this field, from launch vehicles to satellites. And I own stakes in a decent chunk of the plays in this field."
We're pseudonymous. But I've put more of my personal money to work around hyperscalers, by a mean multiplier of 10 ^ 9, over the troll who's a walking Gell-Mann syndrome.
I'm engaging because I want to challenge my views. Reddit-style hot takes are not that.
So what? Why is it important to have 24/7 solar, that you cannot have on the ground? On the ground level you have fossil fuels.
I wonder if you were thinking about muh emissions for a chemical rocket launched piece of machinery containing many toxic metals to be burnt up in the air in 3-5 years... It doesn't sound more environmentally friendly.
So what? Just build some nuclear power plants if AI data centers are so important. It can even work at night when it is infinitely as effective as solar on the ground!
Also I'm astounded how important AI data centers are when we are running out of freshwater, to mention a thing we could easily solve with focusing our efforts on it instead of this. But yeah, surely the Space AI Data Centers (aka. "SkyNet") is the most important we must build...
that may have been the case before but it is not anymore. I live in Northern VA, the capital of the data centers and it is easier to build one permit-wise than a tree house. also see provisions in OBBB
I mean, you don't have zoning in space, but you have things like international agreements to avoid, you know, catastrophic human development situations like kessler syndrome.
All satellites launched into orbit these days are required to have de-orbiting capabilities to "clean up" after EOL.
I dunno, two years ago I would have said municipal zoning probably ain't as hard to ignore as international treaties, but who the hell knows these days.
Parent just means "a lot" and is using 90% to convey their opinion. The actual numbers are closer to 0.083%[1][2][3][4] and parent thinks they should be 0.01-0.1% of the total build cost.
1. Assuming 500,000 USD in permitting costs. See 2.
2. Permits and approvals: Building permits, environmental assessments, and utility connection fees add extra expenses. In some jurisdictions, the approval process alone costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. https://www.truelook.com/blog/data-center-construction-costs
3. Assuming a 60MW facility at $10M/MW. See 4.
4. As a general rule, it costs between $600 to $1,100 per gross square foot or $7 million to $12 million per megawatt of commissioned IT load to build a data center. Therefore, if a 700,000-square foot, 60-megawatt data center were to be built in Northern Virginia, the world’s largest data center market, it would cost between $420 million and $770 million to construct the facility, including its powered shell and equipping the building with the appropriate electrical systems and HVAC components. https://dgtlinfra.com/how-much-does-it-cost-to-build-a-data-...
He said bullshit budget, not budget. He's thinking about opportunity and attention costs, not saying that permits literally have a higher price tag than GPUs.
This is a huge one. What Musk is looking for is freedom from land acquisition. Everything else is an engineering and physics problem that he will somehow solve. The land acquisition problem is out of his hands and he doesn't want to deal with politicians. He learned from building out the Memphis DC.
Maybe, but I'm skeptical, because current DCs are not designed to minimize footprint. Has anyone even built a two-story DC? Obviously cooling is always an issue, but not, directly, land.
Now that I think of it, a big hydro dam would be perfect: power and cooling in one place.
Downtown Los Angeles: The One Wilshire building, which is the worlds most connected building. There are over twenty floors of data centers. I used Corporate Colo which was a block or two away. That building had at least 10 floors of Data Centers.
I think Downtown Seattle has a bunch too (including near Amazon campus). I just looked up one random one and they have about half the total reported building square footage of a 10-story building used for a datacenter: https://www.datacenters.com/equinix-se3-seattle
So why does he not build here in Europe then? Getting a permit for building a data center in Sweden is just normal industrial zoning that anyone can get for cheap, there is plenty of it. Only challenge is getting enough electricity.
I meant Europe is an example of how not to do regulation. The problem you just mentioned. If you get land easily electricity won't be available and vice versa.
Then maybe you should move here. We have in most cases well functioning regulations. Of course there are counter examples where it has been bad but data centers is not one of them. It is easy to get permits to build one.
There's also a bunch of countries pretty much begging companies to come and build solar arrays. If you rocked up in Australia and said "I'm building a zero-emission data center we'll power from PV" we'd pretty much fall over ourselves to let you do it. Plus you know, we have just a bonkers amount of land.
There is already a Tesla grid levelling battery in South Australia. If what you're really worried about is regulations making putting in the renewable energu expensive, then boy have I got a geopolitically stable, tectonically stable, first-world country where you can do it.
Where a random malicious president can't just hijack the government and giga-companies can't trivially lobby lawmakers for profits at the expense of citizens?
I'm confused, wouldn't this be just using the power of the government to enforce short-sighted, tech-hostile regulations like "datacenters should not poison people"?
It’s not that open. We can simulate smaller system of neurons just fine, we can simulate chemistry. There might be something beyond that in our brains for some reason, but it sees doubtful right now
Our brains actually do something, may be the difference. They're a thing happening, not a description of a thing happening.
Whatever that something that it actually does in the real, physical world is produces the cogito in cogito, ergo sum and I doubt you can get it just by describing what all the subatomic particles are doing, any more than a computer or pen-and-paper simulated hurricane can knock your house down, no matter how perfectly simulated.
You're arguing for the existence of a soul, for dualism. Nothing wrong with that, except we have never been able to measure it, and have never had to use it to explain any phenomenon of the brain's working. The brain follows the rules of physics, like any other objects of the material world.
A pen and paper simulation of a brain would also be "a thing happening" as you put it. You have to explain what is the magical ingredient that makes the brain's computations impossible to replicate.
You could connect your brain simulation to an actual body, and you'd be unable to tell the difference with a regular human, unless you crack it open.
Doing something merely requires I/O. Brains wouldn't be doing much without that. A sufficiently accurate simulation of a fundamentally computational process is really just the same process.
Why are the electric currents moving in a GPU any less of a "thing happening" than the firing of the neurons in your brain? What you are describing here is a claim that the brain is fundamentally supernatural.
Thinking that making scribbles that we interpret(!!!) as perfectly describing a functioning consciousness and its operation, on a huge stack of paper, would manifest consciousness in any way whatsoever (hell, let's say we make it an automated flip-book, too, so it "does something"), but if you made the scribbles slightly different it wouldn't work(!?!? why, exactly, not ?!?!), is what's fundamentally supernatural. It's straight-up Bronze Age religion kinds of stuff (which fits—the tech elite is full of that kind of shit, like mummification—er, I mean—"cryogenic preservation", millenarian cults er, I mean The Singularity, et c)
Of course a GPU involves things happening. No amount of using it to describe a brain operating gets you an operating brain, though. It's not doing what a brain does. It's describing it.
(I think this is actually all somewhat tangential to whether LLMs "can think" or whatever, though—but the "well of course they might think because if we could perfectly describe an operating brain, that would also be thinking" line of argument often comes up, and I think it's about as wrong-headed as a thing can possibly be, a kind of deep "confusing the map for the territory" error; see also comments floating around this thread offhandedly claiming that the brain "is just physics"—like, what? That's the cart leading the horse! No! Dead wrong!)
Very cool, this was one of the projects I really wanted to build before I knew better. Trying to understand what was involved taught me so much. I couldn’t find what analog to digital converter and digital to analog converter this uses which would be interesting
I also think a wider bandwidth would be interesting if impractical. Something like recording everything happening on the 2 meter band would be impractical but very cool. I think
I have an RTL-SDR that can cover 3.2mhz -- and with sufficient storage IO could record just about the whole 2m band. I want to see if I could find or develop a SDR app that could visualize like sdrpp, or the other popular ones, but keep a 1-2 minute ring buffer of the data so I could jump back to previously spotted signals when watching a band.
Possibly -- I think the biggest work is more the UX of the functionality: all the controls and UI for scrubbing around the ring buffer, extending the buffer if you need to work a signal and don't want to lose data, jumping to current, etc.
The issue is it’s more like if Americans in mass moved back to Ireland and started genociding the native Irish. Plenty of the Arab population of the region also trace their ancestors back to the biblical period and even if it wasn’t true history in a region doesn’t prevent you from committing atrocities
I don't know if it's productive to talk on here, but I'm not the person you seem to think I am. I think Israel has a right to defend itself and I think it has a right to take in refuges if it wants to, but it doesn't have anything to do with your claim that Jewish israelis have some sort of claim to the land owing to ancestral history that isn't shared by the people they literally pushed out. You can read this wiki article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Palestinians), but my read is that the jews and palestinians both descended from a similar group of people. Palestinians are mostly just historic jews that converted
There are things that have moved me to be more sympathetic to the Palestinian cause over the past few years and I think if you haven't listened to Ezra Klein talk about this you should. I think he holds the right balance of pointing out the horror of what Israel has done while holding the context of the horrors Palestine seems intent on doing if given power
Agree with you on the first point except the conversion was not voluntary if you know Islam’s history in the region. Not only did it wipe out religions but also language and culture. Why can’t Israel have one tiny country for itself in the fraction of the region where the Jewish people have existed for 4000+ years? That’s what this whole thing is about. It’s religious warfare against the Jews disguised as fight for national independence or whatever they want to call it.
I'm not sure that any ethnic group has a right to a country, but I think it's pointless to talk about if Jews should have one though because they went and did it. That's done. I agree with you in so much as there's no going back now, but talking about what happened thousands of years ago is a poor way to decide what should happen now, especially when it's done simplistically.
The Jews who moved back to Israel did not have a greater claim to the region through ancestry than the people they pushed out and honestly I don't think it really would have mattered if they did.
Yes it is a bit of a religious war at times, but also imagine you were born in Palestine in the period of the british mandate. Your family likely lived in the region for thousands of years practicing more or less the same faith you did. You would have been forced out of your home in 1948. Your house would literally be given away as abandoned. If you happened to settle in East Jerusalem you might have been given a home in compensation. That home was originally some poor jewish families, but still somewhere to live, but then when Israel annexed the East Jerusalem they passed laws giving the property back to the original owners. Fine, but did you get your home back? No the law was structured explicitly so as not to apply to you. Maybe you were unlucky though and you resettled further into the interior of the west bank. Well then you might see extremist come into your community in the middle of the night and bulldoze your home. I'm not sure you need religion to end up radicalized in this situation. It isn't fair what Israel did to palestinians in the 40s and it isn't fair what they're doing now in the west bank and gaza. It also isn't fair what Arab countries have done to the jews, but the people who live in the west bank have now power over that
The whole identity of Arabs as Palestinians is a very recent fabrication a la Arafat the mass murderer. Jews were the Palestinians for 2000 years. Vast number of Arabs migrated to the British mandated Palestine from surrounding regions due to economical reasons. It is purely due to religious reasons that Arabs have refused time and again to have their own state even after Israel left gaza by electing hamas. Their intention is and always has been to wipe out the Jews or at the very least keep them under their thumb as second class citizens like in the good old days.
I quoted a source, can you? I did a tiny bit of research. What I can find of early censuses seems to imply that throughout the period of the British mandate their was some immigration of both Jewish and Muslim people, but the fraction of Jewish people in the region grew rapidly mostly though immigration. It seems like it would be convenient if this was true, but it doesn’t seem to be.
As to your second point, idk, it seems to me like probably the Arab side was more at fault several decades ago, but it is the documented goal of the current rulers of Israel to make sure that moderate forces in Palestine don’t come to power. They’ve done everything they can to delegitimize the Palestinian authority. Again if you were a Palestinian living in the West Bank what would you think. What has the peaceful strategy gotten you?
one thing that wikipedia article dedicates 1 sentence and only in order to dismiss, it's that there was significant arab immigration into area when it got economic boost after the arrival of the jews.
there are estimates of 100k - 300k migrants in 20s and 30s as border with jordan and egypt was unsupervised.
a good chunk of actual palestinians are probably descendants of jews that got "culturally colonized" . but it's not known how much of them.
i looked in a past through a bunch of genetic studies that were made that establish that palestinians are genetically native/related to jews. what i didn't find is how they collected data and if they discarded data that was "inconvenient" for purpose of analysis
There is evidence that the group that Khalil headed did endorse Hamas and distributed pro-Hamas propaganda. Whether this news article is true or if it's propaganda remains to be seen.
"He has remained active in recent disruptive protests, including last week’s takeover of the Milstein Library at Barnard College. Videos and photographs posted on X depict him holding a bullhorn near the library entrance and engaged in discussion with school administrators.
That protest featured violent propaganda flyers that purportedly came directly from the “Hamas Media Office,” including one pamphlet titled “Our Narrative… Operation Al-Aqsa Flood,” which justified the Oct. 7, 2023 attack on Israel that killed 1,200 people — and in which women were repeatedly raped, whole families were executed and 251 hostages were taken to the Gaza Strip.
Others at the Barnard library takeover passed around trading card-like photos of notorious Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, who was killed by an Israeli airstrike in Lebanon last September."
"Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents aided a Columbia -owned apartment inhabited by Mahmoud Khalil, who fronts a radical group, Columbia United Apartheid Divest (CUAD), which sympathizes with terror groups like Hamas and Hezbollah and calls for the “end of Western Civilization.”"
Whether or not this is true, I can't say at this point or if this is just propaganda. But at the very least it does say that his group sympathizes with terror groups and if that's true, then it makes him eligible for deportation.
Huh? This just reinforces what I said. He isn’t accused of distributing pro-Hams propaganda or saying he supports them. At best you have unsubstantiated claims on X that someone distributed some images at an event he was also at. That isn’t very conclusive and likely won’t hold up in a normal court of law.
He is the leader of a group that is being accused of endorsing Hamas and distributing pro-Hamas literature. If true, then him being the leader absolutely means he is responsible and should be held responsible. Unless you don't think that Trump should be held responsible for the actions of Musk.
Obviously a newspaper article isn't enough evidence and even the veracity of the article remains in question, the assumption is that there will be actual evidence. If true, he should be deported. If false, then he deserves to go free. It's pretty cut and dry.
I don’t think the article even was so bold as to say his organization distributed pro Hamas flyer. They say someone at the protest did and leave it to your inference that it was the org he leads
> He’s been a regular fixture on news programs discussing the group’s disruptive efforts, including an interview on Quds News Network done completely in Arabic
Why is it relevant that he did an interview in Arabic? Like seriously?
As others have said the rest reads as just guilt by association.
To be maximally fair to the other position it has made me reluctant to protest against Israel despite being broadly against them. There are too many people in that movement who are clearly racist, but it’s also unfortunate that pro Israeli forces campaign hard to conflate opposition to Israel with opposition to Jewish people
> Secretary of State Marco Rubio shared a link on X to a news article about Mr. Khalil’s arrest and issued a broad promise: “We will be revoking the visas and/or green cards of Hamas supporters in America so they can be deported.”
I don't consider twitter posts as anything more than the ramblings of the deranged, and don't really see a twitter post as evidence that someone already got deported considering how much politicians lie on there.
News coverage seems to suggest immigrants can be detained while moved to revoke their green cards are made, but it’s incredibly troubling that no one seems to know what’s up, the government agents arresting him seemed to think he had a student visa and in general there is so little visibility
You're suggesting there was a previous administration that rounded up lawful permanent residents without court orders on US soil, on the charge that they committed forbidden speech?
oh yes. and he broke a law passed by congress. that makes it even MORE appalling, as all three branches were complicit in an egregious breach of the constitution, not a single one stopped to hold the line
Yes, but FDR's executive order allowed the military to order the exclusion of anyone from any place. The actual thing a person could be arrested for was passed unanimously by Congress to support the EO and enforced by courts. Even during a real national emergency, nobody was disappearing Japanese people without due process. Korematsu was arrested and tried and convicted and their conviction was upheld by courts of appeal and the Supreme Court. At the time FDR, Congress, the Court, and everybody else thought they were doing due process. There's a lot of daylight between that and what Trump is doing.
The US has legal reasons now. Ukraine is a sovereign country and would be more than happy to accept US military bases. The US hasn't sent soldiers because they don't want to go to war with Russia
Why would US get involved now when they have nothing to gain and possibly escalate the situation to WW3?
If US owned resources in Ukraine, they have very good reason to deploy troops over there. Russia won't escalate the situation by attacking american resources and troop. This should slow down the war to a good extent combined with the cease fire agreements.
Your logic doesn't make sense. Why would Russia be willing to escalate to ww3 in the first scenario but back down in the second scenario?
And if getting involved will escalate to ww3, what difference does those resource deals make? Either american involvement (via NATO or this mineral deal logic) forces Russia to back down or it doesn't.
US signed memorandum of security for Ukraine. Not involving into Ukraine war means:
1. Nuke is the only option to guarantee security. Everyone should get one. Iran, Venezuela etc.
2. If you have nukes you can occupy neighbors with little/no punishment. Taiwan is the next in line.
3. US is not an ally, could not be trusted in any way.
Sad to see how Trump is dismantling USA from it's role as a global superpower.
1. Nuke doesn't guarantee anything in current situation. Russia might blow up the nuke moment it arrives in Ukr.
2. US France UK has made it very clear that they can occupy and establish military bases in non nuclear countries without repercussions, especially in Middle East and Africa.
3. Memorandum was signed by multiple nuclear countries and none of thier troops are deployed in Ukraine. Besides US was the largest supplier of weapons in Ukraine.
US is hardly affected by Ukr situation. For them to get involved, there should be something at stake. If they owned something in Ukr, they would have reason to defend it with US troops. Russia won't escalate by attacking US troops or resources.
I agree though I have actually noticed that Amazon is more clear about this than they used to be. They now clearly say you’re buying a license not the book and it may have just been a Europe thing but I think it even made me confirm that I knew some of the implications of that distinction.
Unlike a lot of people on here I think I don’t have fundamental problems with DRM, but I think consumers absolutely should be guaranteed more rights over the things they buy. Maybe something like.
* access is non revokable and if any part of the drm scheme stops working the provider must provide a drm stripping tool
> * access is non revokable and if any part of the drm scheme stops working the provider must provide a drm stripping tool
This is unenforcable even in the presence of good will. (If a company goes bankrupt, they might simply not have the resources, or, if relevant programmers leave, then they might not have the ability, to distribute a stripping tool.) A practical measure in this direction might be to mandate that DRM schemes "phone home," which they surely do already, and that they are required to disable themselves if they don't get an affirmative signal.
(Of course, this has its problems from the publishers' point of view, but as a customer I'd be very pleased with it.)
Make it a legal requirement during development of any DRM that the tool is created with the DRM. Release of the source code for the tool during bankruptcy, release of the tool and hosting as a legal requirement if they no longer want to support it indefinitely.
Theres no reason taking away our rights should be easy for the company when DRM mostly just makes life miserable for anyone trying to buy digital goods legally.
I think there should also be a limit of how long you can use DRM. Something like 5 or 10 years. After that for most things your sales have plummeted and now you're just punishing the consumer. If you want people to buy again for some new format or whatever you need to add actual value. Working on the new thing when purposefully ignoring the old is not value.
There's no key system like that that could possibly work.
But you already are required to deposit your books (or other copyrighted works) with the British Library upon publication and many other countries do the same thing.
reply