Hacker News Reader

You mean you operate them like Microsoft's failed submerged data center project [1]. When pointing at validating past examples you are generally supposed to point at successes.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Natick

View on HN

Did we read the same Wikipedia page? It doesn't say the word "failed" anywhere on it.

> By 2024, Project Natick had been inactive for several years, though it was referenced in media as though it was ongoing. That year, Microsoft confirmed that the project was inactive and that it had no servers underwater.

I wouldn't exactly call this a success, for that matter.

To me, failed, implies some sort of real failure, not just, "eh, won't make us enough money" a la Google/business since forever/the exec who's pet project it was moved on/had babies/was fired for unrelated reasons/some other human thing unrelated to the technical proposition.

If, like, sea-water entered and corroded the system and it blew up and ate babies, and caused Godzilla, that would be a failure. It just being not quite interesting enough to go after seems... I mean I guess it is, but on a "meh" level.

"eh, won't make us enough money" would make space data centres a failure too. The whole point is to do compute more cheaply than a traditional data centre.

The opposite of down is up, so it wouldn't be completely illogical.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com