The people responsible for developing Windows should never be allowed near any kind of critical infrastructure.
this post was submitted on 27 Jan 2024
131 points (95.8% liked)
World News
32291 readers
580 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
"Bluescreen. Meltdown imminent. Would you like to search this error code with Bing?"
Don't worry. It'll run Linux.
Putting aside the jokes, this is a pretty good idea. Dedicated renewable energy sources for data centers have some real problems (expansion, power transmission, land use in areas ideal for data centers, peak loads for data centers out of synch with the consumer grid, blahblahblah etc). With nobody anticipating the demand for data services will suddenly stop growing exponentially, because that would be silly, this is a prudent step forwards. I think we can all agree that reducing the operating costs, reducing the strain on local power grids and furthering societal acceptance of modern small-scale nuclear power plants are all pretty valuable ideas.
(and for what its worth, Microsoft contracts with NIF - they're already involved with the design of nuclear weapons, a thorium reactor (which would be DOE managed anyways) is a bit less concerning)
It sounds like the sky is the limit. They should call the project Skynet.
Yea, nuclear powered AI with power independent from the grid certainly strikes me as a dystopian AI premise.
Plus it's Microsoft.
Yep. Key part of the premise. Balmer is consulting in the background and somehow gets part of his personality imprinted on the AI.
Data centers [...] have traditionally relied on renewable sources like solar and wind
I don't think that's really true. The green/grey graphs in this article show how difficult that is: https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/clean-energy/google-and-others-have-committed-to-24-7-carbon-free-energy-what-does-that-mean
I'm, like, OK, nuclear power isn't necessarily a bad thing.
But power plants like that should probably serve wider municipal needs.
Building a private nuclear power plant just to power a data center? Well that's clearly stupid.
Building a private nuclear power plant just to power a data center focused on a niche application? Well you know how that goes.
Also, look up SL-1. Disturbingly few Americans I've talked to have heard about that. Generally a good argument about why not every single thing should be powered by a tiny dedicated nuclear reactor.
A failure in a poorly designed test reactor isn't a great argument against nuclear power
SL-1 can't happen in a modern reactor design. In fact, it probably could never have happened in any non-test bed reactor. The issue was cause by an actual human pulling the control rod physically, from what I can tell. That's just not a thing done with operating reactors I'm pretty certain. There are also a ton more precautions built in than they had, as well as better protocal and understanding of the mechanics.
I'm not making this comment to disagree with your point, but the failure of the SL-1 reactor strikes me as an engineering and process failure more than anything else. The reactor was not designed in a safe fashion, probably because it was designed as a test bed for reactors that could be deployed via airplanes to the Arctic circle. The fact that an engineer was even able to fully remove a control rod, and the fact that removing that control rod lead to a fatal steam explosion make me think that they really tried too hard when they removed weight and volume from the reactor design.
In well designed safety-critical systems, human error should not be able to cause any form of bodily harm. I don't think it's a great idea for a private company to be running nuclear reactors on Earth to power something as trivial as a data center (investing in storage + local solar/wind/geothermal/hamster wheel velodrome seems like a more efficient use of resources for one thing), but I also don't think that SL-1 is the best example to cite here.
As an aside, my high school Physics teacher went on a long diatribe about how the three SL-1 casualties were the only humans ever killed as the direct result of nuclear fission in the context of a nuclear reactor. Looking back on it, I think she was splitting hairs a bit, but it is an interesting point to make.
Well you know how that goes.
I don't, please elaborate.
All these fancy plans and Microsoft still can’t figure out how to merge Windows Control Panel and Settings into one 🙄.
This was really annoying in windows 10, but in windows 11 I can’t remember the last time I had to go into control panels. I don’t do too much odd stuff, but still.
Backward compatibility issues I would imagine. When your codebase is that large and ubiquitous, it's hard to make the tiniest change without breaking shit.
And every time MS does change* something, resulting in breaking updates: "SEE! M$ sucks!"
Getting strong metal gear solid vibe from this one
Welp, didn't think I'd be reminded of Don Widener's book N.U.K.E.E. today.
I can't wait for the extropians to start installing McReactors everywhere. More energy = more better!!!
How about they use the AI to figure out cold fusion?
LOL. You don't think this stuff can actually produce novel solutions do you?
If it looked at 32,000,000 candidates it did a brute force search.
The problem with nuclear is nuclear waste. Nuclear waste is stored in barrels in caves and buried. It remains radioactive for thousands of years. By creating nuclear waste we are forcing 100 generations after us to live with this nuclear waste. I don't know all the details but they say it's "safe."
Hard to believe how safe something can be from an inconvenient earthquake or terrorist attack.
Funny how everyone is immediately concerned with a few thousands of cubic meters of solid waste that literally loses its harm exponentially quickly and we can store underground while all the billions of tons of toxic liquid and gaseous waste coming from a sleuth of industrial applications (including renewables production) constantly being pumped in the biosphere never get a mention
I could be wrong but I thought rate of decay was a logarithmic function, not exponential.
Rate of decay for a specific isotope is constant, so its abundance decays exponentially. Of course a species can transmute in a new radionuclide so the process in total will not be exactly exponential, but pretty close. Seen on a log scale it's awfully close to a straight line
This link shows that the number of nuclides decreases at a slower rate as time goes on. Opposite of an exponential function.
As time progresses the rate at which the nuclear waste decays into innert matter is slower and slower. This is not at all an exponential rate.
So I don't think it's correct to say "loses its harm exponentially."
It "loses its harm" more slowly as time goes on
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-physics/chapter/31-5-half-life-and-activity/
Sorry what? That link literally explains the exponential decay of radioisotopes.
Exponential decay is not the same as "exponentially losing its harm"
It very slowly "loses its harm" and as time progresses, it gets even slower.
The inverse of an exponential function is still an exponential function.
The harm of ionizing radiation is given by the activity of the source. Which decays exponentially. You should not go on the internet lecturing people you don't know about things you don't understand.
Also, you moved the goalpost: first you claimed waste "doesn't decay exponentially" and then without acknowledging it, you now claim that "exponential decay is not the same as losing harm exponentially"
I concede that it is exponential and not logarithmic, but the original statement of yours "loses its harm exponentially" is what got us going down this tangent. I think that statement is misleading, because the truth is that the waste loses its harm exponentially slower as time goes on.
I don't think you understand the concept of exponential, or radioactivity for that matter tbh. The statement is completely truthful.
Lol OK buddy, I went to school for this and worked in a power plant.
Sure LMAO
Wrong.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/lhHHbgIy9jU
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
I watched that video, and while I agree that nuclear waste is safer than fossils fuels, there is still a non-zero risk to storing nuclear waste, especially if you consider how long it remains radioactive.
Would I prefer to live near a nuclear plant or a coal plant? definitely nuclear.
Wind, solar, and renewables are still cleaner than nuclear.
Also burying nuclear waste in what that video says:
[far away from] any geologically active area
With climate change we are seeing extreme weather events and earthquakes more frequently than expected. Who's to say that areas which are currently not active won't become active.
Don't get me wrong, I understand renewables are not going to supply all the power we need right now. I realize that nuclear is the cleaner option (comprlared to fossils fuels).
However, I am still concerned about the nuclear waste. I'm glad they have tight security, and it's good to know the barrels are missile resistant... But nothing is 100% safe. If a terrorist decides to make one of these sites a target, and they have enough money and influence, I'm sure it's possible for them to penetrate security and penetrate those barrels.
Radiation levels are low around the barrels but if contamination occurs that would still be a disaster.