It “was” not anything, as it is still upcoming.

They will take a volume weighted average closing price of the seven previous days:

At the effective time (the “Effective Time”) of the Merger, each share of Cursor’s common stock and each share of Cursor’s preferred stock outstanding immediately prior to the Effective Time of the Merger will be automatically converted into the right to receive shares of the Company’s Class A common stock based on an implied equity value of Cursor of $60.0 billion and the price of the Company’s Class A common stock equal to the volume-weighted average closing price thereof over the seven consecutive trading days immediately preceding the closing of the Merger (the “Merger Consideration”).

They are also claiming to be training their own new model on SpaceX’s infrastructure. I don’t particularly trust them, but I’ll give the citation anyway just for additional info.

Together with SpaceXAI, we’re training a significantly larger model from scratch, using 10x more total compute. With Colossus 2’s million H100-equivalents and our combined data and training techniques, we expect this to be a major leap in model capability.

They entered into an agreement to buy Cursor, with an expected time for the merger in Q3. It’s an all stock transaction, the number of shares that will depend on the SpaceX share price, to make up the 60 billion USD. Also they will pay in Class A shares (so the shitty ones with nearly no voting power)

For real, or just for a little pump and dump action by some bad actor again?

It’s slightly less stupid than data centers in space I suppose. But I still find it pretty weird.

You will have to be tethered to land anyway. Properly high bandwidth networking as you would usually see to connect a data center (on the order of a dozen terabits per second) only exists through fiber optic cables. I’m sure of this point, because optical networking is my day-job, though we only run 400 Gbit/s links on the fastest edges since we’re a small national network.

As for power, well there are 80 MW ship engines (e.g. Wärtsilä-Sulzer RT-flex96C, which has even been built in Korea under license before), so it’s not impossible I suppose. But if you are tethered, then the country you’re tethered to will probably forbid you from burning bunker fuel for 80 MW on its coast. At which point you’d be reduced to running clean diesel or something. That I expect would make the power more costly than just tethering to an electric grid

So now we have a big barge rather than a ship. What do you really save then? I guess the price of the land? And you gain access to copious amounts of saltwater, so you can do closed loop cooling with freshwater, and do the secondary heat exchange to the ocean. But you could do that by building on the coast too. Okay I guess you might gain tsunami security over a coastal building.

If this is a real proposal why don’t they tell us the material advantages they expect, rather than making us guess?

der8auer already explained that it won’t work. So this is no big surprise to me, but nice to see him proven correct.

Links: German: first video, follow-up video, English: first video, follow-up video

Well there is no forced air. There isn’t really any variables to have anyone look at. Short of sawing a hole in a wall, door or window.

According to this calculater:

• 400 ppm CO₂ in air would be about 0.72 g / m³
• 3000 ppm CO₂ in air would be about 5.40 g / m³

The room is about 20 m³ in volume. So in total that’s 14.4 g to 108 g in a night. Ignoring any that diffuses under the door into the hallway, this would imply I breathe out 93.6 g of CO₂ in 8 h at rest.

A common number I see online for adult humans is 1kg per day. Makes sense that a significantly higher than proportional part of that is during waking hours, so I expect quit a bit less than 300g at night. Seems pretty plausible to me all-in-all.

Mine goes up to 2850 or so, even when I air out the room in the evening down to 430 or so.

But luckily no headache for me. I can’t handle having the door open, I’m the last flatmate to get up in the morning.

Peak output needs to be 1.2 GW not GWh.

They just had the first stone laying ceremony so that explains the new wave of publications on the project.

They are using a Vanadium flow battery by the company Invinity Energy Systems which is British-Canadian.

I’m a little unsure whether it’s a good idea to combine this with a datacenter, I hope the datacenter bubble popping won’t jeopardize the whole project.

I’m guessing “no operators” is implied.

But now I’m wondering if it would be worth it to sacrifice the two leading nines to add “0x” instead and replace all the other "9"s with "F"s

If the dictionary isn’t good enough, would it help if I demonstrate usage?

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=wantonly&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3

Granted, the terms “wilfully” and “maliciously” are a little more popular, but it’s not that far apart either:

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=wilfully&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=maliciously&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3

I am also hoping that I do that, but I still don’t

Wantonly

Normal word: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/wantonly, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wantonly

Verycomputer

It said “Very Computer”, which is a humoristic way of saying highly computer-savvy

Once you have it figured out, just mechanically doing it all correctly for 1023 steps is also annoying.

I did it up to the 511 moves for the 9-pice game on Android once, and according to the stats page that took me 6 min 18 seconds. The 10-piece version does not have a time, so I think I gave up :-)

lawn-like lawn

🤔

Moving the goalpost much?

They are still calling it Fable hm? I know I should just ignore it, but re-using names makes me unreasonably mad.

This is Fable and has been released for a while:

That sounds like someone takes their fiduciary responsibility seriously. Good job.

It was only the German position against the American trench gun in WW1, but never wide agreement:

On September 15, 1918, the German government officially protested the use of the shotgun in a note verbale—an unsigned diplomatic note—transmitted to the Spanish Embassy in Berlin, then to the Swiss Embassy, and eventually to the American legation in Berne, Switzerland. The note asserted that the use of shotguns by U.S. forces violated Article 23(e) of the 1899 and 1907 Hague Conventions and warned that any American captured with a shotgun or shotgun ammunition would be executed.
[…]
In his formal response to Germany’s protest, Secretary of State Lansing maintained that the shotgun the army used could not be the subject of “legitimate or reasonable protest” under the Hague Conventions.
[…]
In the 100 years since the protest, the U.S. government’s position with respect to the use of shotguns in wartime has never wavered. U.S. military forces used shotguns in World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and even in post-invasion Iraq (to clear out suspected insurgent hideouts in house-to-house fighting).

Source