[–] 35 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

The point isn't to make it forensically undetectable, but to prevent the room temperature IQ cop from noticing what happened. If they "unlock" the phone and don't see anything that looks out of the ordinary they won't make a big deal out of it and there's a chance they'll let you go.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    It still doesn't make sense because of the power density. The size of the solar array you would need is completely impractical. Even a "large foldable solar panel" isn't going to cut it. Most satellites are relatively low power and even then the size of the solar arrays they have relative to the volume of the satellite is massive. Something as energy hungry as a data center pretty much demands a "small" nuclear generator to power it and the practicality of getting that into orbit nevermind the issues when it eventually de-orbits makes that a nonstarter.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 16 points 1 day ago (12 children)

    Don't forget power it as well. Watched a video where someone did the math and to generate the power required of a typical data center you'd need a solar array something like 40 times the size of the one on the ISS. It would be an absolute behemoth of a satellite and that's without taking into account the cooling which would likely double the size again. Of course once you get that big then you have to worry about keeping the thing in orbit because moving that much mass isn't exactly easy. No matter how you slice it it's a stupid ass idea that doesn't work.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 7 points 5 days ago (1 child)

    In theory a federal one is better but it's unrealistic. It's going to be hard enough getting a state wealth tax passed, it's essentially impossible to get a federal one passed. For that to happen you'd need to give Democrats complete control of both houses of Congress and the presidency, and even then it would be a struggle. With Republicans in control of anything it's a complete pipe dream. So rather than going for the perfect solution that isn't going to happen anytime soon it's better to go for the imperfect one that has a good chance of actually happening.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 12 points 5 days ago (2 children)

    Well first you need to invent AGI which is probably at least a decade away still, but once you do that then you negotiate with that AGI to carve out a little corner of the Internet and lock all of us inside it.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (1 child)

    If you're influencing the outcome via some private mechanism that's a crime and is in fact illegal (a little thing known as insider trading or cheating depending on how you go about it). So per your definition either you can't influence the outcome in which case it's gambling, or you can in which case it's illegal and you're committing a crime.

    All that said I think the definition of gambling being truly random isn't quite right. Gambling has always been about statistical outcomes because if it was truly random nobody would ever make any money off of it so nobody would waste their time. Remember the house always wins because they control the odds. These sites are just bookies in techbro clothing using marketing and legal loopholes to run illegal gambling sites.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 6 points 1 week ago*

    MS has mastered the one thing businesses love which is being perfectly mediocre. If you present a business two pieces of software one that does one thing really well but nothing else, and one that does three things terribly, they'll pick the one that does three things terribly every time. That's the MS design, it smears a thin coating of suck across as broad a surface as possible and then advertises that it does everything.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • view more: next ›