“Have we tried ‘Kill all the poor’?”

Remember, releasing the files is extremely popular with Republican voters, to the point where anyone who votes no is going to look like they’re basically in bed with the evil deep state pedophile cabal hiding under the pizza parlor.

That means for them to kill it in the House, a whole bunch of GOP reps have to face a firestorm from their constituents.

If it does in the Senate, it’s because they let that firestorm spread to every GOP senator too.

And if it makes it to Trump, and he’s forced to veto it? That might just be the final nail in his presidency. His polularity is already tanking. This could kill it completely.

Yeah, I think recent polling puts it at something like 75-80% in favour of releasing the files, and it’s pretty evenly split across party lines.

Thanks, that helps a lot and definitely recontextualises the whole situation. I can still seem some advantage in forcing the GOP to burn their one CR in January, but that’s definitely a much smaller threat than I had previously assumed.

Thanks, that seems to be context I was missing and does change my read on this pretty substantially. Someone else made the same point earlier, but without the specific details about the procedural hows and whys.

That would still force the GOP to burn their one CR for the year in January, which is not nothing, but I can absolutely agree that it’s far less leverage than I’d initially taken it to be.

Interesting. That’s a procedural detail I wasn’t aware of. Is there somewhere I can read up more on that? Why is it specifically that this vote could be filibustered but that one can’t?

After reading more about the deal, it’s actually starting to look pretty smart.

They’re only funding the government until January.

So all the stuff where the Republicans have to bring votes by December isn’t a punt, because the Dems are keeping a loaded gun on the table. If the GOP fail to uphold their side of the deal, they can just shut the government down again, right away, with a clear and obvious justification.

The reality is, actually getting these ACA subsidies extended was never likely to happen. It has to go through a GOP controlled house, and Trump. But by holding out for an agreement to actually put it to a vote, the Dems have put the issue squarely on the GOP. They’re gonna force them to either shoot down their package in the Senate, shoot it down in the House, or have Trump veto it. It’ll fail in one of those ways, mark my words, not it’ll fail in a way that is very obviously the GOP choosing not to stand up for regular Americans. And by extending the issue with the shutdown there’s been enough time for people to start seeing the 2026 rates and really getting a picture of how this is going to hurt.

I think this is a solid win. The subsidies were always doomed, and I don’t think actually extending them was ever the objective. I think the point was to force the GOP to kill them in a very public and obvious way where its clear who is holding the knife. This deal achieves that.

Edit: Strike the above. After understanding some more of the details, it’s not looking nearly as smart as I’d first assumed. Leaving the original up to not ruin the continuity of the thread.

OK, this is starting to make sense.

The deal says “You have to put the ACA subsidies to a vote by December. In return, we’ll fund the government until January.”

So they’re not giving up their leverage, because if the Republicans fuck around the Dems can just slam the brakes on again right away. Meanwhile it puts the ball squarely in the Republicans court to actually do something about this issue that is raising healthcare prices for people all across America. It puts the focus on the Republican controlled House, and on Trump, letting the public really see who is fighting for them and who isn’t.

I know it’s easy to assume that this is another example of Shumer caving (God only knows, he does it so much I’m starting to think his spine is a paper straw), but looking at the details I’m starting to think this is actually a solid play.

Thank fuck for that. Maybe they’ll actually get something done this time.

The “room for throwing up in” is a myth. It was based on a misunderstanding of the appearance of the term “vomitorium” that cropped up a bunch in Roman texts describing certain structures.

As another user noted, it’s just a large exit door. From the root meaning of vomit; to expel.

He’s cautioning that Russia will be capable of launching a limited attack, and that they do have the motivation to do so, if NATO allows them to believe that an attack would not be met with a response.

Russia is very eager to test the strength of the NATO alliance. With the US clearly faltering, they want to know if the rest of NATO will still stand united.

No matter how much Russia arms up, defeating NATO - even without the US - is not a realistic possibility. It could be, if they heavily militarise their economy while NATO countries allow our militaries to languish. This is why increased military spending is necessary, as much as that absolutely sucks. We can no longer rely on the US to foot the bill for protecting us, and we can no longer rely on access to the global economy being enough of a draw to prevent countries like Russia from starting shit.

No one wants to live in a world where being prepared for all out war is necessary, but that is the world we live in now and there’s really nothing we can do about it.

Our only realistic option for NATO member states is to strengthen and rebuild our military forces, strengthen our bonds with each other (this is why Operation Reassurance is so important) and create a defensive posture that will prevent Russia from even thinking of trying anything, while we slowly bleed them to death with sanctions.

This the exact rationale used by climate deniers. Because you can state that there is “controversy” over an issue, you can dismiss it entirely.

The consensus is that Isreal is committing a genocide. Those who are disagree are a tiny minority, and should be considered nothing more than outliers. It doesn’t matter that some of the disagreement comes from nations like the US. They’re not more right just because they have a big economy and military.

As you said, “Wikipedia’s job is to describe historical and scientific consensus”, and that’s exactly the responsibility that they’re shirking here, choosing instead to gesture at a barely existent “controversy” that basically consists of “Isreal and their allies refute the claim.” By the same token we shouldn’t call Trump a felon because he still insists he’s innocent.

This is exactly the mistake that the Dems made going into 2024. They shouted from the rooftops about how great Biden’s economy was, while completely ignoring how cost of living was destroying the average person.

Trump has managed to make those problems even worse, fritter away the few good things Biden’s economy did have going for it (low unemployment, significant investment in certain manufacturing sectors) and now they’re doing exactly the same play. But it’s going to take the Dems waking the fuck up and actually offering real solutions on cost of living to capitalise on this. That’s how they won on the 4th; every candidate that won, from progressives like Mamdami to moderate centrists, talked about affordability, the one thing Biden and Harris refused to acknowledge.

How do you imagine that would actually work?

This keeps her in the game and gives her an opportunity to demonstrate the effectiveness of her policies on a small scale where differences can often be felt a lot faster. That gives her a much better chance to get back into a position where she’s holding the keys at the federal level down the line.

Take the win, bud.

This article is about Republicans, not Democrats. Yes, I know, it’s crazy that for once the opposition is coming from the enemy camp.

To be fair, I think everyone is baffled that the Dems haven’t caved by now. I didn’t think it was possible to regrow a spine.

Short answer? You can’t.

Long answer; You can if you’re willing to basically devote the entire economic output of a large country to the problem.

Here’s the thing, putting aside cooling, the entire notion of a data-centre in space is insane. Falcon Heavy is about the most efficient launch vehicle we have right now, and it still costs $1500/kg that you send up. A fully loaded data centre rack can weigh around 1,000kg. Almost all of that weight is that actual hardware in the rack; y’know, the computers and hard drives that are the data centre.

So, sending a single rack to orbit costs $1.5m. A very small data centre might contain around 20 racks. The ones being used for modern AI workloads and the like are more in the 50,000 - 100,000 range. But even if we keep this tiny, super boutique, only for data too important to keep on earth, you’re still looking at $30m just to put the actual hardware into orbit.

That sounds OK, but that is only a tiny fraction of our costs. This is all going to snowball massively. On earth those racks are cooled by massive industrial HVAC systems that each have their own standby generator as well as the astonishing amount of power they pull from the grid. That works because they can circulate cool air around the racks, blast it out into the atmosphere, then pump in fresh air that you cool in the HVAC. You have none of that in space.

So instead you’re stuck with radiating heat through massive heat sinks with massive arrays of fins. And you have to get the heat from each individual computer, with all their really hot components, out to the heat sinks. That means you have to liquid cool every single component in this orbital data centre. Thousands of CPUs, thousands of hard drives, all liquid cooled. Then your liquid cooling has to run through unimaginably large heat sinks and radiators. At a wild guess I would bet that the total weight of all this cooling equipment (heat sinks are solid metal, and liquids are heavy and hard to fly into space because they shift around) would probably be a hundred times that of the equipment being cooled. So you’re talking about billions of dollars just in hardware to orbit costs, across thousands of launches.

And then you have to actually assemble everything. That means you need engineers who are also trained to work in orbit (so, very highly paid), and you need to get them up there. Since there’s nowhere for them to stay during construction, that means they have to go up, do a few hours work, and then come back down. Eight hour EVAs are not unheard of, so in theory your guys can do a full shift up there, but holy shit you have just invented the world’s most expensive commute by many orders of magnitude. It takes months to years to get a data centre up and running, and that’s one that doesn’t have all of these added complexities. Plus, working in space is really, really slow compared to working on Earth. You’re in a clumsy suit, wearing clumsy gloves, in an environment where nothing moves likes it’s supposed to and where you can never put anything down because it’ll just float away. Building something like this would take years of daily launches. You can’t just pre-build the components and send them up either, because everything is so ridiculously heavy that even a small chunk would exceed the weight limit of any launch vehicle we have today.

Oh, and going into space is really taxing on the human body, so you’d have to give those engineers lots of breaks, meaning you’d probably need to cycle different teams in and out for this whole thing, so that runs up your costs even higher.

And then what happens when something breaks? Liquid cooling needs constant maintenance, it’s very fiddly stuff. And hard-drives fail. Your average data centre will be swapping out a few drives every day. Even a small one is going to need a drive replaced every few weeks or months. Every time that happens someone has to go up there. You can’t just call Ted and tell him to hop in his Civic.

But we still haven’t gotten to the biggest problem yet. Power. Data centres use a truly staggering amount of power, between the computers and the cooling. Right now data centres, on their own, account for almost 5% of all power usage in the US. That’s fucking insane. So you need to somehow power everything you send up there. Powering things like space stations and communications satellites works because we build them to be very, very efficient. Even communications satellites, which have to process huge amounts of data, use between 1,000 and 5,000 watts. A single server rack, by comparison, can consume between 5,000 and 10,000 watts. So that’s 2-5 communication satellites worth of power for one rack. And we said that our absolutely tiny data centre needs twenty of those (and, again, I really need to drive home how small that is; that’s not a data centre, it’s a single room in a low-end corporate HQ). There is absolutely no way you’re going to strap enough solar panels to this thing to generate the kind of power it needs. Not without increasing the weight and construction time by another factor of one hundred. So now you need nuclear power of some kind… Which generates huge amounts of heat. So now you have to radiate that heat. Which increases the weight and construction time by another hundred-fold.

When all is said and done, we’re talking about high billions to low trillions of dollars to build a data centre that could fit in an apartment. Why? What could be possibly be worth that? Even if you were to make that argument that someone has data so valuable that it couldn’t possibly be kept on Earth, that still doesn’t make sense. On Earth you could, for a fraction of that price, bury that data in a vault deep underground or put it on an island or store it deep in the arctic where the environment makes it difficult to even approach (and solves your cooling costs). And in all of those locations, with that kind of money to throw around, you could hire a small army to protect it. Whereas in space, ultimately your precious data is just sitting there, basically unprotected. If it’s worth that much, then it’s worth it for a state-level actor with launch capabilites to send a few guys up to steal it.

This is a wild pipe-dream cooked up by silicon valley tech-bros who didn’t consult a single engineer in the process.

Edit to add: In the article the company behind this claims they’re going to use robots to do all the construction, and that it will be powered by solar panels multiple kilometres wide. Again, given everything I just said about the cost of putting that much material in orbit, vs the actual benefits, there is literally no way the economics of that works. Sure, you can knock out some of the costs I’ve listed, but you’re still basically taking the cost of a tiny data centre and massively amplifying it for absolutely no benefit. At best I suspect they’re just trying to raise their profile by making sensational claims.

Re: 4

Very, very common misconception, because of how often you see things/people in movies instantly freeze in space. But it’s just not remotely true.

The analogy the previous user gave is perfect; space is a thermos flask. It’s a perfect insulator.

To break that down a little more, you have to understand that heat moves in two basic ways; conduction and radiation. Conduction is when molecules agitate the molecules next to them. Radiation is when molecules give off electromagnetic energy.

The way a thermal camera works is that it sees the otherwise invisible infra-red light that hot things give off. That’s the radiation part of heat transfer. Radiation is, on the whole, a really slow, really bad way of moving heat.

Conduction is much faster, especially when there’s a big difference in temperature between the two mediums. That’s why you (average temp around 37C) can stand in a 21C room and feel really comfortable. You’re losing thermal energy, because the air touching your skin is colder, but you’re losing it at about the same rate your body naturally makes it.

But if you step outside into air that’s -20C, your temperature is going to start dropping very fast. There’s a much, much bigger difference in temperature now, so the heat transfer is faster. Also that air is probably moving because of the wind, which means the parts of the air getting warmed by the transfer from your skin are instantly replaced by fresh, cold air.

In space you have none of that. Just vacuum. There’s no molecules in vacuum to agitate. So aside from the very small amount you lose from radiation, heat just builds up. This is a huge problem for spaceships and satellites. They have to build in massive fins to help radiate heat away faster.

But it gets worse, because you know what radiates heat really, really well? The Sun. Which you are now exposed to, whenever you’re not directly in Earth’s shadow, with no atmosphere to absorb any of that incoming radiation. So the biggest problem for objects in space is rarely getting too cold, and far more often it’s getting too hot.

Introducing something that already has massive cooling requirements into that environment would be a total fucking nightmare.

No, this is in preparation for the unrest that they’re planning to cause.