• 0 Posts
  • 243 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
Cake day: June 30th, 2023
  • towerful@programming.devtoTechnology@lemmy.world•SpaceX is seeking FCC approval to launch 1M satellites into space; SpaceX claims the fleet will orbit the Earth and use the sun to power AI data centersEnglish
    31·
    6 days ago

    Scott Manley has a video on this:
    https://youtu.be/DCto6UkBJoI

    My takeaway is that it isn’t unfeasible. We already have satellites that do a couple kilowatts, so a cluster of them might make sense. In isolation, it makes sense.
    But there is launch cost, and the fact that de-orbiting/de-commissioning is a write-off, and the fact that preferred orbits (lots of sun) will very quickly become unavailable.
    So there is kinda a graph where you get the preferred orbit, your efficiency is good enough, your launch costs are low enough.
    But it’s junk.
    It’s literally investing in junk.
    There is no way this is a legitimate investment.

    It has a finite life, regardless of how you stretch your tech. At some point, it can’t stay in orbit.
    It’s AI. There is no way humans are in a position to lock in 4 years of hardware.
    It’s satellites. There are so many factors outside of our control that (beyond launch orbit success), that there is a massive failure rate.
    It’s rockets. They are controlled explosives with 1 shot to get it right. Again, massive failure rate.

    It just doesn’t make sense.
    It’s feasible. I’m sure humanity would learn a lot. AI is not a good use of kilowatts of power in space. AI is not a good use of the finite resource of earth to launch satellites (never mind a million?!). AI is not a good reason to pullute the “good” bits of LEO

  • towerful@programming.devtoMildly Infuriating@lemmy.world•British plugsEnglish
    2·
    2 months ago

    I doubt it.
    Tripping over a cable is as likely to damage the socket as it is to rip the cable out of the plug.
    Any appliance that increases risk by being unplugged should probably not be using a consumer connection…

    I think the 3 pin layout caused a lot of headaches, and the integrated fuse required a user-servicable plug.
    So it would have to be a split-shell design of some type, where the appliance cable would have to be cable-gripped to the same part as the plug/socket pins.
    Thus, a bottom-entry (heh) cable grip and a removable back plate that can only be unscrewed when it’s unplugged.
    This was all in a time of bakelite. Plastic wasn’t flexible.

    But no, I think tripping over an early bakelite g-type (I think it’s officially a g-type) plug cable would likely shatter the plug and pull the pins out of the socket… If it didn’t also damage the socket.

  • towerful@programming.devtoProgramming@programming.dev•My first successfull program in C
    3·
    2 months ago

    Heck yeh! Great work.
    I think most critique has been covered.

    I consider too-many-indentations to be a code smell.
    Not actually an issue, but maybe there is…

    There is nothing wrong with your code, and no reason to change it (beyond error catching as you have discovered). It runs, is easy to follow, and doesn’t over-complicate.

    I like descriptive function names and early returns (ie, throw or return on all the conditions that means this function shouldn’t continue, then process the parameters to return a result).
    This could massively clean up what’s going on.
    There could be a “getUserCommand()” that returns the desired number, or 0 if it’s invalid.
    If the returned value is 0, then break.
    If the returned value is 6, then print values; then break.
    Otherwise we know the value should be 1-5.

    You could use an Enum to define the choices.
    This way, the print lines and the conditional tests can both reference the enum. It also removes “magic numbers” (IE values that appear in code with no explanation).
    In something simple like this, it doesn’t really matter. But it improves IDE awareness (helping language servers suggest code/errors/fixes). And Makes the code SOO much more descriptive (Ie “choice == 3” becomes “choice == Choices.Product”).