252 karma · joined December 7, 2025
Did you read my comment?
"I have multiple friends in the industry, who have taken a trip through the company."
I am literally referring to extremely successful engineers who have worked directly with Elon.
I'm going to need more than a puff piece on some random Elon stan's medium page to outweigh what I've heard from my friends.
Any other firm, you mean like the bloated and bureaucratic NASA/JPL/defense contractor madhouse? That's not much competition.
> Why has Tesla been successful? Why is xAI pretty similar in terms of approach? My idea has less variables than yours. It also doesn't fly with his tendency to fire people.
Your "idea" (statement) is that his companies are successful due to his micromanagement. In reality, they're successful in spite of it. Like all impactful engineering institutions, there are incredibly talented people working at the "bottom" levels of these companies that hold the whole thing together.
There's a good bit of irony here in your thought that he'd fire people that didn't agree with him or disobeyed him. From what I've heard, he lacks the technical rigor to even understand how what was implemented differs from his totally awesome and cool, off the cuff, reality adjacent ideas.
The myth of the supergenius CEO has real potential to influence investors, beyond that, the hard engineering is up to the engineers. Period. SpaceX wouldn't have gotten past o-ring selection with Elon at the engineering helm.
Have you ever spoken to someone who works at SpaceX? I have multiple friends in the industry, who have taken a trip through the company.
The overwhelming consensus is that - in meetings, you nod along and tell Elon "great idea". Immediately after you get back to real engineering and design things such that they make sense.
The folks working there are under no delusion that he has any business being involved in rocket science, it's fascinating that the general public doesn't see it that way.
Hmm, surely the radiator can run at arbitrary temperatures w.r.t. the objects being cooled? I'm assuming heat pump etc is already part of the design.
Where's the source for this?
But seriously, why are all the stans in these comments as unknowledgeable as Elon himself? Is that just what is required to stan for this type of garbage?
Yes, running hotter will cause more energy to be radiated.
but
These parts are not at all designed to radiate heat - just look at the surface area of the package with respect to the amount of power they consume.
Fascinating. Tell me more.
Where does the heat energy that isn't radiated away go?
It's trivial to understand why this is all hype if you pay attention to physics, as another commenter suggested earlier.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law
Assume you're radiating away the heat for a single B200 (~1kW), and the max radiator temp is 100C, you find A = ~3m^2.
So that's 3 square meters per GPU. Now if you take into account that the largest planar structure deployed into space is ~3k m^2 (https://investors.lockheedmartin.com/news-releases/news-rele...), you're looking at 1000 GPUs.
That's a single aisle in a terrestrial data center.
Cost to deploy on earth vs satellite is left as an exercise to the reader.
Instead you put your confidence in Elon, who has zero expertise in this area?
I know many people smarter than me, plenty of them who have spent careers building data centers, and not one of them think this is plausible.
You should consider whether people smarter than the average investor are pulling a fast one.
> [1] https://asahilinux.org/docs/hw/soc/usb-pd/
What in your linked page made you conclude this? Your link references https://web.archive.org/web/20211023034503/https://blog.t801..., which clearly states that ACE is a port controller - this is not the same as a "USB controller".
If it's that easy, why did we spend 20 years in Afghanistan only to suffer defeat by goat herders holding AK-47s?
A quick review of the last 100 years will educate you on the viability of asymmetric warfare.
Yeah, did you? Any more substantive discourse you'd like to add to the conversation?
To be clear about the word "reasonable" in my comment, it's similar to the usage of the very same word in the phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt".
The agents involved in the shootings aren't claiming that:
- the driver telepathically communicated their ill intent
- they saw Pretti transform into a Satan spawn and knew they had to put him down
They claim (unsurprisingly, to protect themselves) that they feared for their life because either a car was driving at them or they thought Pretti had another firearm. These are reasonable fears, that a reasonable person has.
That doesn't mean the agents involved are without blame. In fact, especially in Pretti's case, they constructed a pretext to began engagement with him (given that he was simply exercising his 1st amendment right just prior).
But once in the situation, a reasonable person could have feared for their lives.
Interesting choice of analogy, to compare something with the singular purpose to destroy biological entities, to a computing technology that enforces what code is run.
Can you not see there might be positive, non-destructive applications of the latter? Are you the type of person that argues cars shouldn't exist due to their negative impacts while ignoring all the positives?
Precisely.
There's no question that ICE is daily trampling civil liberties (esp 4th amendment).
But in both killings there is a reasonable interpretation that they feared for their lives.
Now should they have is another question. With better training, a 6v1 < 5ft engagement can easily disarm anyone with anything less than a suicide vest.
But still, we aren't at the "run around and headshot dissenters" phase.
Is there a HN full moon out?
Again, this is wrong.
DRM is a policy.
Remote attestation is a technology.
You can use remote attestation to implement DRM.
You can also use remote attestation to implement other things.
Would love to hear more of your thoughts on how the users of the device I worked on had their freedom restricted!
I guess my company, the user of the device that I worked on, was being harmed by my company, the creator of the device that I worked on. It's too bad that my company chose to restrict the user's freedom in this way.
Who cares if the application of the device was an industrial control scenario where errors are practically guaranteed to result in the loss of human life, and as a result are incredibly high value targets ala Stuxnet.
No, the users rights to run any code trumps everything! Commercial device or not, ever sold outside of the company or not, terrorist firmware update or not - this right shall not be infringed.
I now recognize I have committed a great sin, and hope you will forgive me.
No, it's not. (And for that matter, neither is remote attestation)
You're conflating the technology with the use.
I believe that you have only thought about these technologies as they pertain to DRM, now I'm here to tell you there are other valid use cases.
Or maybe your definition of "DRM" is so broad that it includes me setting up my own trusted boot chain on my own hardware? I don't really think that's a productive definition.
The update is predicated on a valid signature.
They literally don't.
For a decade, I worked on secure boot & attestation for a device that was both:
- firmware updatable - had zero concept or hardware that connected it to anything that could remotely be called a network
Let's say I accept this statement.
What makes you think trusted boot == remote attestation?
Look, I hate systemd just as much as the next guy - but how are you getting "DRM" out of this?
No offense, but you're simply ignorant on this topic.
https://scispace.com/pdf/a-guide-to-time-of-death-in-selecte...
This is just one of literally thousands of resources answering this exact question. There are other resources to help evaluate other potential consumption risks. There's no need to pretend that the only animals people can eat are the ones they witnessed being killed; people do otherwise, and have for millennia.
> No, we're discussing a bear that was dead by the road.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/roadkill
Your interpretation is wrong, and potentially disingenuous.
Animals killed by vehicles on the road are pretty easy to distinguish from animals that coincidentally died on the road.
> He found the bear long after whatever occurred did. Also, he then dumped it in central park, so even he thought it wasn't "good meat"
So your argument is that there's something wrong with roadkill because it might be afflicted with something that would make it detrimental for human consumption; now you admit that he was able to evaluate its fitness for consumption, and avoided consuming something that wasn't "good meat"?
What point are you making exactly?
Yours is the same argument as right wingers screaming "ewwww insect derived protein is gross, don't you know insects can cause ____".
We're discussing roadkill bear. Meaning a bear that was killed on the road (by a vehicle).
It's technically true that it still could have any of the scary afflictions you mention, but that's no different than any hunted game, or any industrially farmed animal.
Barring prions or poisoning (incredibly and quite rare, respectively), all of those issues can and would be evaluated by someone who intended to consume the animal.
I'm curious if you consume meat, and if you've ever been involved in the slaughter or processing of animals.
What is wrong with roadkill bear? Genuinely asking.