Thought For The Day - 6 August 2026

Caught a snippet from a Lamestream TeeVee news feed. Some medPro stated what I've found to be obvious since the start of Covid-19: it's an animal to human skip, just like SARS and MERS before it. I suppose that, because the brunt of both was elsewhere on Mother Earth, the Right Wingnuts didn't bother to conjure a dark conspiracy. I guess they hadn't heard of Fauci then.

Pie in the Sky - part the second

All those many months ago, when I first read reports about the Best New Idea in AI, the orbiting Data Centre, I nearly blew lunch. Clearly, these guys don't know shit about physics or engineering. I put off puting up the obligatory diatribe, assuming that some Lamestream Pundit with access to numbers and real engineers, would do so. It's taken longer than I expected, or I don't obsess as much as Dear Reader might think.

Well... today I found such a diatribe... sorta of.

In an interview, McCalip says his initial rough calculations a few years ago suggested that data centers in space would cost in the range of 7 to 10 times more, per gigawatt of capacity, than their terrestrial counterparts. "It just wasn't practical," he says. "Not even close." But when Elon Musk began publicly backing the idea, McCalip revisited the numbers using publicly available information about Starlink's and Tesla's technologies and capabilities.

So, the Main Smartest Guy in the Room (all the time)^© began beating his drum (or other appendage, hehe) for the effort. And, as one might expect, he pushed his LEO Taxi Service in service to in orbit data centers.

What so many ooh and aah over, the reusable lifter, is really Olde Tech. 1 - reusability was demonstrated at least as far back as the SRB for the Space Shuttle, 2 - the landing on a dime from re-entry goes back to at least the Apollo missions landing on the Moon (you can, I expect, find them on youTube; unless, of course, the moon landings were all FAKE). Nothing new here, move on.

So, the author then backtracks bigly when he accounts that these orbiting data centres would be mated to Starlink locations

Bottom line, with some solid but not necessarily heroic engineering, the cost of an orbital data center could be as low as three times that of the comparable terrestrial one. That differential, while still high, at least nudges the concept out of the instantly dismissible category. "I have my particular views, but I want the data to speak for itself," McCalip says.

It's not of no significance that The Musk Ox's taxe service is limited to LEO, not geo-whatever very high orbit. What's the diff, you might ask? Well... very high orbit is well above atmospheric friction, so falling out of orbit is a rare occurence. With LEO, on the other hand, falling out of orbit in short order is part of the taxi service bargain.

If you visit the innterTubes you'll find: Starlink sats last 5-7 years and 1 or a couple plummet to Mother Earth daily.

For this illustration, we picked a configuration with an aggregate 1 GW of capacity. The network would consist of some 4,300 satellites, each of which would be outfitted with a 1,024-square-meter solar array that generates 250 kilowatts. The data center on that satellite, powered by the array, might have at least 175 GPUs; McCalip notes that a popular GPU rack, Nvidia's NVL72, has 72 GPUs and requires 120 to 140 kW.

Notice, of course, that the author elides the need to replenish the sats. My wild ass guess? Such a host of orbiting data centre component sats could never be fashioned as an on-going concern; The Musk Ox couldn't keep up with the replinishing requirement. And consider two other snags: cooling all those motherfuckers and "wiring" those 4,000 units into a whole data centre. Much easier to do the wiring here on Mother Earth. Ah, but Arizona, data centre ground zero, is on the verge of going waterless. Air cooled computers, mainframe and mini, have been in service for decades, but these AI fashioned ones... nope. Ain't much air up there in space. Cooling is still up in the air. hehe.

Free cooling is perhaps the biggest misconception. Space is cold, but it also has no atmosphere. That means the best heat-removal mechanisms, conduction and convection, are off the table. The only option is radiation. To prevent a chip from overheating in space, a large, costly surface area is required to dissipate the energy and then radiate it.

Stupid is as stupid does.

The governing equation for radiative cooling, the only type of cooling available in space, is known as the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. It states that the amount of power you can radiate is proportional to the area of the radiator times its temperature to the fourth power.

Oops - part the first

Well... y'all should still know that I've grown even more skeptical of AI as the months have passed. Hundreds of billions of dollars on a tech whose TAM is based solely on axing all labour from the economy (in particular those well educated office/lab workers in Blue States whose 10% of the income distribution make 50% of consumption). So, how much axing will it take to reach the tipping point of global collapse of aggregate demand? And, naturally, that will spark The Permanent Great Depression. No one who works can work to get moolah to spend on stuff, and the companies that make stuff have no buyers. And all those Smartest Guys in the Room who bought up every last CPU and GPU to make AI will never see a dime of profit from this "investment". Neato. Some things don't require really elaborate war games to predict.

Day by day, the dam holding back collapse of AI, and before it's even finished being built and running as intended, takes another step to oblivion. Wel... here's today's bit of news.

Situational Awareness, a fast-growing hedge fund in San Francisco founded by 20-somethings that invested heavily in A.I., put out an emergency call for help to rivals in the past 36 hours, seeking to sell more than $10 billion of its stocks to shore up its plummeting portfolio, according to three people briefed on the call.

What was that story about a kid name Icarus? Or that olde (German?) adage: "we are too soon old and too late smart."

Eating

Years ago some pundit (Marc Andreesen), remarked that software will eat the world. Boy, has he ever been shown to be an idiot. AI is 99.44% hardware, and the rest is 100+ year old stats. Now we get the dire skinny from Jeff Sommer:

These big companies are able to categorize the money as an investment — a capital expenditure — and not as an expense. So under current accounting rules, the bulk of the spending has not yet counted against their gaudy earnings. That is helping to propel the stock market to new heights under rosy assumptions that A.I. will transform the world, and that the companies behind it will be making money.

Just like man's laws, accounting rules are also manmade. Unlike, for example, the laws of thermodynamics. Even the laws of economics are manmade, not natural. So, what does it all mean, Mr. Natural?

One day earlier, IBM's shares lost 25.2 percent. That was its steepest daily decline since the 1960s, and it was set off by an earnings shortfall that its chief executive attributed, in part, to the spending underway on A.I. data centers. "We did not anticipate the magnitude of the capex reprioritization," Arvind Krishna, the company's chief executive, wrote in a letter to investors. Other companies spent so much money to build A.I. foundations, he said, that there wasn't as much left as expected for software service companies like IBM.
[my emphasis]

It's stll not clear to me, anyway, how AI's TAM can amount to anything more than labour replacement. If that really does decimate employment, who'll have moolah to buy all those Bongo Bits? Or, will 'modern economies' devolve into a 'modern dark ages' with only the oligarches having need of the only 'product' made by this modern economy: fancy financial services? With the amount of billions of Bongo Bucks going into each entity's 'data centres', is there enough labour in the world to satisfy the bond holders? Much less show a tidy profit?

There are already rumblings in the high yield market surrounding concerns that the explosion in issuance has bubble-like characteristics similar to that of telecoms in the early 2000s or energy in 2015 to 2017, when investor enthusiasm outweighed a sober assessment of risk. These same critics also worry about the potential for overbuild or overcapacity, i.e. the massive demand fails to materialise, or that despite the strong tenant base, these contracts have yet to be tested.

When it's the Damn Gummint, the 'bond vigilantes' come to the rescue, or corpse feeding. We'll see how they do with such, mostly, private paper.

Thought For The Day - 16 July 2026 (kinda, sorta the Ides of July; how appropriate)

And, fur shur, Day; before Ayatollah 49% Don^© spews more Big Lies tonight. As stated in these missives more than once: NSA has the receipts; they have known since '15 and '16 and '20 and '24 who from Russher, Russher, Russher and who from Ayatollah 49% Don^©'s camp were talking up the fix. I'll bet that Batshit J. Fucking Moron^©Tillerson himself was talking. After all, he's the best shill for his bidnezz. And he knows it.

Will it be treasonous enough to inspire another Snowden? Only The Shadow knows.

Rite of Passage

The MAGAnauts, and many of the others, keep mewling that the Strait of Hormuz is some kind of international waterway, and thus can't be deemed within the territorial waters of Iran and Oman. To be clear: even the olde time 12 mile limit means that Oman and Iran have an overlapping claim to the waters of the Strait. That is not in dispute, no matter what Bone Spur Samurai^© and his minions say.

But... there is an international treaty, known by its acronym UNCLOS

This is because Iran is not a party to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

And, as you'd likely guess, neither is the USofA

The USA has long been one of the most ardent champions of the freedom of navigation, despite not being a party to UNCLOS.

Neither country ever ratified the treaty.

A history of UNCLOS and the USofA from that left-wing commie wiki. We can take anything we want.

What Eccles Means - part the first

Well... let's update, just a tad. It was recently reported that the top 10% of consumers comprise nearly 50% of consumption. That's a lot. It also, one might suppose, means that the things consumed by that 10% are markedly different from the other 90%. IOW, the 10% spend on luxury, discretionary stuff, while the 90% seek not much more than subsistence. Yes, that's what was reported. Surprise, surprise.

This goes a long way to explain Trumpism: he has been a very good liar, and his marks have been very, very stupid. OTOH, he has given them what they really want: the restoration of The Way Things Were - White folk always having some dark folk below them.

But, here's how labor has been treated for decades

What this means for Eccles? The macro arithmetic no longer works. With AI threatening to move labor's share way, way lower economic policy has to choose: aid the Rich to be Richer, or aid the Poor to be part of the whole economy? Only the shadow knows.

Taken to its logical conclusion, this is a vision of work in which even high-level employees systematically automate nearly every task they perform, until all that is left for them to do is train A.I.

Regular reader likely remembers, long, long ago in a place far, far away, that the only way to de-hallucinate AI is to build it on a database, preferably of the RDBMS variety, to store the ground facts of some area of interest, to act as a safeguard against stupid AI. Well...

Handshake then sends its clients a database with hundreds or thousands of values, containing the original prompt, the top answer and various metadata.

Boy howdy. Now, the report doesn't specify what that "database" is, but it need not be my favorite DB2/LUW. MySQL or even SQLite might do. After all, in use it will likely be read-only. At most WORM.

Who, and how many of Who, will have moolah to drive GDP if these Bros get their way? Will it just be Dark Ages V2.0 with the Really Rich living in castles and the rest living subsistence no matter their inherent talent?