The ceiling on asteroid mining is orders of magnitude higher than anything constrained to earth. Put another way, imagine if you owned Australia because your company built it up off the ocean floor.
The sphere does not need to be built or owned by a single entity. You too can own a single unit of the sphere for the low, low price of $2T. There can be different corporate entities owning different sections and monetizing it in all kinds of ways (e.g. the KY sector is ideal for powering asteroid mining in the Kuiper Belt)
I hear people often talk online saying energy in the future will be either free or very cheap.
Dont know what cheap means for them, but it will never be for free because abundance happens when the supply exceeds demand and I dont see the scenario where the demand for energy is declining in a long run.
Well, I guess the argument would be that a billionaire financing the construction of space habitats could make them effectively company towns, but of a highly educated workforce. Once enough of them are there they'll have their own economy, and whoever owns them/the oxygen supply/whatever would be getting a lot of return. I don't think that's a great argument, though, for multiple reasons. I think it's better to just frame it as building a legacy. Put humans in an entirely new place that many of us desperately want to be, end up having the equivalent of a city named after you.
Are you claiming that it is not possible to put a satellite into an orbit around the Sun? Please take a look at how many times this has been done already: [1]. Now just capture Sun's energy on one and do something useful with it: part of Dyson swarm.
It is possible to send a singular satellite pretty much anywhere. It is not possible to build and maintain a Dyson Swarm. At the sizes of modern satellites you'll need trillions of those, which is completely unrealistic with Earth-side launches. This is before we get to doing them any actual dyson swarmy work: so far our probes are only good at communicating and observing.
Dyson Swarm in particular is a megastructure harvesting much of the star energy to the extent its spectrum is dramatically shifted to infrared. I can't stress enough that a lone satellite is not a swarm, Dyson or otherwise.
A dyson swarm is just a bunch of satellites, each harnessing energy from a the same star around which they are more or less are situated (what they do with that energy is up to them). They harvest a proportion of the star's energy anywhere on the range between 0 (non-inclusive) and 100% (inclusive). Your description is one possible end state of a Dyson swarm, and itself includes a subjective measure (what you consider dramatic might not be what I consider dramatic).
Your description of it as a megastructure might explain some of the confusion: it wouldn't be a structure, but rather a formation of satellites not physically connected to each other.
How do you build a swarm of satellites? Well, first you make 1 satellite, then you make another... :)
> Your description is one possible end state of a Dyson swarm, and itself includes a subjective measure (what you consider dramatic might not be what I consider dramatic).
My description is Freeman Dyson's description. Naturally you are allowed to come up with ImPostingOnHN's Swarm, which includes a case of zero satellites and no effect on the star emission whatsoever.
> How do you build a swarm of satellites? Well, first you make 1 satellite, then you make another... :)
Sure and the end state of completing Dyson Swarm in Solar system is not achievable with the technology we have. Now let's move on to discuss if one man with a rifle but no vehicle constitutes a Motor Rifles brigade.
> Sure and the end state of completing Dyson Swarm in Solar system is not achievable with the technology we have.
Sure, for one possible end state.
The point is that we have the technology to start, because we've already started. Thus, it is achievable given enough time and effort with our current level of technological advancement.
How do you get energy from there? How do you deal with waste heat of satellite which is being heated up by sun from one side and heated up by your mode of energy transfer from the other side?
Unless we have some magical solution which can convert waste heat into electricity and thus making such satellite working with 100% effectivity, then such satellite needs to transmit energy with very limited power otherwise it will fry itself up.
Why 100% now? None of those satellites are exploding right now from overheating. Just add a laser on each pointed at somewhere where the energy can be used, done.
None of those satellites are also trying to collect as much energy on one side and beam them on the other side. Notice how those satellite closer to the Sun are wrapped into reflective and isolating materials and only antenna, solar panels and sensors are sticking out.
Additionally high power laser has currently something around 80% of efficiency. So if you have 10kW of input from solar array on one side, then you are transmitting 8kW via laser and 2kW into satellite itself as a heat. And again, we are in vacuum of space, so good luck with radiating 2kW of power into vacuum.
The fact, that you can't get rid of waste heat would need whole satellite to work close to 100% effectivity, which we don't have technology today
I don't think the article and researchers meant it's actual rigid sphere, that's just the Star Trek based popular opinion. Dyson Sphere is Dyson Swarm, people just didn't get it the first time.
By that argument, deep fake porn shouldn’t exist at all. But it does, so clearly that’s not the way these people see the world. Some faces are simply “better” than others, at least in so far as those with perverted pornographic desires are concerned.
To amend my prior comment, the law says that the face actors in fact are harmed as well, reputationally. Fair enough; I’m not here to play “defend the pedo”.
It exists because face is what gets visibly aged on people even if the body isn't easily distinguishable from children. Why is it called "child sexual abuse material" if no child was abused in its creation?
Ad reputational damage - OK, I agree if they distribute it, that's fair. But if they don't distribute and the police finds it only after they take their hard drives?
Do you expect a huge marketing campaign from BigCSAM focused on convincing pedophiles that only real CSAM proves their husband/wife truly cares about them?
This particular case is very well known and proven to be caused directly by the marketing, yes.
There is no justifiable difference like beauty, durability or function between "real" and "artificial" diamonds. Only an expert can tell, and only because the "real" ones are less perfect. And of course - both are real diamonds.
There are many adult actors explicitly cashing in on their child-like appearance, especially in Japan. How do you determine that the picture is a child or an adult with child-like appearance?
I don't know about hentai but given the amounts of Japanese actors I have to skip because I don't like them appearing like children suggests they're not that interested in the safety thing...
The author clearly mentions that if the offshore team is capable, he will be up for using their services.
They mention that the offshore team got extensive hand holding with him, and that the project is very well documented. Still they were unable to get anything done even after a month.
And then two months in, they start lying to their own managers to hide their incompetence.
If a team that is selling their expertise as a product is unable to get anything done until on the three month mark, and the results are as pathetic as the author makes it out to have been then they get no sympathy from me.
He said he answered questions. Seems like his answers were useless since they kept asking. And why was he answering, and not someone from the team? This is classic situation in onboarding new devs on a team - the solution is to assign a dev to pair program with them for few days, that way it's either immediately visible they can't do the job and you bring that to the stakeholders, or they make a PR, nothing in between.
1 month is no time to expect great results even with onshore employees coming into your office, much less remote guys in a nonstandard difficult project. They probably meant they are finally beginning to understand it.
This is not "a team", it's a bunch of new developers in the authors' team and treating them in any other way is a serious leadership mistake. The author is wasting his employer's money.
Because he is paid to do so, not to keep his own job cushy and safe. Sometimes you're paid to automate yourself out of a job, sometimes you're paid to let someone take over - don't take the money if you're not willing to do it.
Who pays? Your boss gives directions but there is a reason for companies having values and missions. Companies interest and instructions received not always align. Particularly when it comes to outsourcing paying attention to incentives of individual decision makers is important.
