Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | DaedalusII's commentslogin

I have to call out this disingenuous mob like language which is basically saying "because this person served in the military of a UN Security Council member, it is justifiable to murder them in the street years into their retirement"

how is a submarine commander committing war crimes?

by the same way of thinking, it would be completely justified for people from many countries to show up at random US service members houses and shoot them in the street , or perhaps attack their embassies, commit suicide bombings...


No, personal responsibility for war crimes with double digit casualties is not the same as just being in the same military force in any capacity.

Though if your local UN security council member is known for committing war crimes then you probably shouldn't serve in its military.


You're so close to getting it! It turns out that terrorists don't hate Americans because they're jealous of the self-proclaimed greatest country in the world, they hate Americans because Americans commit crimes against their people.

I said nothing about whether it was justified, simply noted the state of reality in which you should probably avoid doing harmful things to others if you would like to not motivate them to harm you in return. Americans would absolutely benefit from doing fewer things to harm other countries if they would like to be targeted by fewer terrorists.


what do you think of theory that denuclearisation movement in west europe was funded by CCCP? it makes sense to think CCCP/Putin would finance subversive movements to remove nuclear and coal and make the region dependent on russian energy exports

I think some of them are definitely funded by them, there was an article about it I saw: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/russia-funding-europe...

They fund other stuff that weakens and divides Europe too like the separatist movements in Scotland, Catalonia etc.

That's not to say that all the people in these movements are Russian agents or that these groups don't have some good points and legitimate grievances, but nonetheless they are an easy, cost-effective way for Russia to attack us.


Of all the silly things I’ve seen Europe do over the last 20 years, getting rid of nuclear plants has to be one of the strangest. Sure, we all want solar but it’s not there yet. Hidden forces here would not be a surprise.

Well, lets not forget that Europe was downwind of the worst nuclear accident in world history. https://radioactivity.eu.com/articles/nuclearenergy/chernoby...

That sort of event doesn't fade away quickly and definitely influenced energy policy that persists to this day. Thankfully the tide is turning due to safer designs.



An absurd conspiracy theory.

Nuclear power has an LCOE that is 5x the cost of solar and wind. Nobody would build it on cost alone.

The only reason countries build and run nuclear power plants is because it shares supply chain and a skills base with the nuclear military.

Which means they have nukes (France, Russia, US) or they they want to take out an option to one day build a nuke in a hurry just in case for a threat that is usually very obvious (Sweden, Japan, South Korea).

This was clearly recognized when Iran started building nuclear power plants but when Poland suddenly got interested in 2023 ostensibly "because environment" after decades of burning mountains of coal nobody batted an eye.


> when Poland suddenly got interested in 2023 ostensibly "because environment" after decades of burning mountains of coal nobody batted an eye.

Polish discussion about nuclear energy has always been openly tied to national security and energy independence, given its/Europe's reliance on Russian energy exports. Especially given its northern geography, nuclear is better for base load stability. (The environmental is also important, and strides have been made to reduce emissions.)

Of course, there has also been discussion in Poland about nuclear sharing or even seeking to acquire/build nuclear weapons itself, also openly, but I don't think anyone is actually pursuing this in earnest.


Solar and wind are intermittent. Grid scale energy storage is not even a thing yet.


That's not much. Projects listed there can't store energy for winter needs.

It's windy and sunny in the winter too.

Ahhhhhhh . . . it's Australia.

Winters here have more sunshine than UK summers.


Neither could French nuclear plants when they were turned off for weeks at a time for emergency maintenance.

So, France fired up the gas.

5x cheaper electricity, on the other hand, makes power-to-gas economic, which can smooth out seasonal variations in a carbon neutral way.


Isn't power to gas still ridiculously inneficient?

Last I checked it seemed like something pushed by gas companies since it upholds gas infrastructure and most of the intermittence is currently supported by gas.


It's very costly compared to normal gas but it's still marginally cheaper to use solar and roundtrip p2g to use on a cold, windless night than it is to use nuclear power produced on any day of the year.

There's just zero economic incentive while polluting gas is dirt cheap and maxxed out solar and wind rarely even covers 100% of current electricity demand.



its literally cheaper to create a low earth orbit satellite constellation than deal with bureaucracy

nasdaq listings can be rough, not sure if anyone remember fb ipo

but how else will they own spacex, openai, anthropic, nvidia, in such concentration


there arent enough retail investors in the world to buy this ipo

but they will get a lot of flow from sovereign wealth fund and pensions

you might wonder why anthropic spend time in australia, a country with less economy than canada and almost no industry at all? likely because it has very big pension fund pool to buy their ipo


simple, just have a private bank relationship

jpm and gs will let you open an account in the us if you have $50m cash


Heraclitus — 'For the best men choose one thing above all—immortal glory among mortals; but the masses stuff themselves like cattle.'

the old saying goes that every entrepreneur wishes they were a philosopher, and every philosopher wishes they were an entrepreneur

generally holds true soros marc rich bill gates musk thiel nassim taleb epstein etc


I like that saying but those are all entrepreneurs right? Where are all the philosopher wannabe billionares? From my experience they seem pretty happy in relatively low paying professor jobs.

> Where are all the philosopher wannabe billionares?

On Twitter, in my experience. The 'manosphere' is practically all philosopher-wannabe-billionaires.


I doubt that anyone could categorize the manosphere phenomenon as philosophy. Without empathy you can't really have philosophy. Or, at least not the kind that you can take seriously.

It struck me as I was watching the new Louis Theroux Netflix documentary that the manosphere must love Nietzsche.

I don't take them seriously. They do see themselves philosophers though.

nassim taleb is primarily a philosopher who pretends to be a hedge fund guy, jordan peterson, robert kiyosaki, tim ferriss maybe, sam bankman fried, the tech lead yt

archetype is people who sell their success as a model for you to follow while having none themselves, wrapped up as some kind of philosophical position, so they can make money

lots of self help authors, failed vc funds, podcasts


I don't think Peterson is a philosopher or an entrepreneur. Does debating college kids make you a philosopher now? Is that the bar? At least mention Žižek. He's an actual, present day philosopher.

That’s all tech bros and self-help gurus? I guess anyone can claim themselves to be an “philosopher”

singapore/malaysia/indonesia one of the best places in the world for datacentres. just have to build absurd cooling systems and use coal power plants

the bottleneck is they keep running out of water for cooling


Singapore?

They were among the worst (and most expensive) datacenters I've worked with, but they were used because we were latency sensitive (game servers).

Haven't heard of anyone deploying to Indo/Malay though, maybe I missed something here.


good question, but there is a rational answer. remember if youre going to tie up a few billion in a project you want strong laws around ownership

singapore ran out of land. malaysia ran out of water and electricity

indonesia is unstable politically and just started confiscating foreign owned farms

india is too politically risky. people will just steal your shit

middle east - israel/iran chabad trump war etc. all within ballistic missile range, unstable

africa is africa

latin america no infrastructure (highways, power grid, etc)

labor is other bottleneck. it actually borderline impossible to bring in skilled engineers and technical specialist to remote energy rich areas


> africa is africa

Jeez what a way to dismiss the second largest continent and the second most populous landmass in the world.

I'd argue Africa is the best place to start such a thing. Cheap labour, plenty of renewable energy. The biggest issue it probably has is how little bandwidth it has, and might require additional sea cables.

But "africa is africa" is not a way reason to dismiss the continent.


you have never worked in africa. its cheaper to build a data centre in low earth orbit than most of africa

1 physical security is a problem, and in some countries like equatorial guinea or south africa foreigners arent allowed to own assets outright

2 cheap labour cant actually do anything. they are nice people but they cant read instruction manuals. cant set up data centres

3 no infrastructure. why zambia and kenya etc are 99% cellphones, is because there is no grid and no landlines because people steal all the copper wires

https://iol.co.za/the-star/news/2026-02-18-r23-billion-lost-...

stories engineers have told me about building things in africa: - i was working on an oil rig and one day the local employees started playing hide and seek and trying to kill us until a ransom was paid. for 48 hours we hid in a ventilation area until the ransom was organised, then had to go straight back to work with the people who were trying to murder us with power tools the day before for a month - the person who gave my company a contract was chainsawed to death on a beach


What do you think of Moroccos efforts to build lots of DCs?

bad grid, bad fibre, #146 in the world in electricity production per capita. less power output than many US states, rule of law risk, civil unrest risk, and data sovereignty (gdpr), must get expat engineers (and get them visas)

large scale offshore wind in norway could generate 50-75% of the entire US production with 80% uptime and then DCs built in norway or EU area


> india is too politically risky. people will just steal your shit

India is a huge place and some parts of it are vastly better managed than others.

> latin america no infrastructure (highways, power grid, etc)

The governance problem is quite real in Latin America actually, but I think it may have potential. If some infrastructure gets funded in the process it would have beneficial side effects all around.


cant fund infrastructure because that is when the bad governance results in money and asset being stolen

rule of law why country like singapore and finland end up being richer than brazil or argentina


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: