measurablefunc

What happens when Oracle can't pay the interest on their loans?

They only have 12 years of proven natural gas reserves left so you should take up whatever issues you have w/ lack of natural resources w/ mother nature. Most of the new capacity they are planning to build are natural gas & coal plants. Renewables are not reliable enough for data centers.

Then you should move to Texas. Seems like that would solve whatever issue you have w/ lack of new buildings or whatever you're concerned about.

According to Google, Texas currently has about 87GW of peak capacity & a data center production pipeline that will require 75-100GW. So the state will have to basically double its peak capacity to supply power to all those new data centers.

Article is about economic/business success which is defined in terms of revenue/profits, i.e. numbers going up & to the right.

Peter Naur wrote an essay about exactly that https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/016560...

Computers can not think & that is why they are useful. Thinking computers would become very problematic very quickly.

"Civilization advances by extending the number of important operations which we can perform without thinking about them." - A. N. Whitehead

Analogy doesn't really work.

I recommend you look into Gell-Mann amnesia.

Meta takes more in than whatever it pays back¹

Meta Platforms reported annual income taxes of $25.474 billion for 2025, driven by massive profit margins and a major one-time tax charge stemming from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA). Despite massive recorded U.S. income, Meta's effective federal tax cash rate dropped to just over 3.5% due to extensive research and development (R&D) credits, stock option tax breaks, and bonus depreciation.

https://share.google/aimode/INoZEto9gPbRPilrV

My city has bonds for all sorts of projects & it is financed by the people & federal grants. No corporations are involved in the process. It's not complicated: https://www.epa.gov/waterfinancecenter/effective-funding-fra...

Meta is an unnecessary middleman, all those payments could be handled w/o them & their advertising network. Also, from your own link

META received a 55 percent tax break as part of the Enterprise Zone Tax abatement program, which is a state initiative

I've never seen a cent go to any service in my local municipality from Meta's taxes & whatever does end up in the city coffers is not big enough to have any real effect b/c those services could just as easily be financed by direct payments instead of some circuitous route of federal, state, & sales taxes from transactions enabled by corporations like Meta.

If I was in SF & working for Google or Meta then maybe you might have a point but I'm not in SF or any major metropolitan area so from my perspective the whole thing is actually a net negative.

How do I, as an ordinary person, benefit from Meta's data centers? I don't have any presence on Meta's platforms & the only time I even notice their existence is when someone sends me a text message via signal for some viral link on one of the social networks.

I think you're overestimating the relevance of these data centers for regular people. They can get by just fine w/ local¹ & a lot less environmentally destructive computational resources.

¹https://solidproject.org/

Then you are paying for the electricity. It's not physically possible to do more computation & not use more energy b/c every arithmetic operation requires a minimum amount of energy so more operations = more energy.

You should look into In-Q-Tel.

I got the answer from the AI I was looking for & it makes sense. You can try to map the volumetric density to areal density but the mapping is not canonical so it doesn't say anything about the physical reality of actual transistor density since the reality is that it is a volumetric measure that gets fudged for marketing purposes. 3D volume for chips is going to keep increasing so they will eventually transition to measuring density over volume instead of area.

It's a physical quantity per some unit of spatial measurement so the units still don't match up b/c in one case the transistors are stacked per volume & in the other case per area.

Historically, "node" sizes (like 28nm or 7nm) directly correlated to the physical length of a transistor's gate. Today, names like 3nm or 2nm reflect a marketing generation. The actual transistors are significantly larger than these nanometer labels, meaning density varies between companies

Research organizations like IEEE have proposed new metrics, such as transistors per cubic millimeter (MTr/mm^3), to accurately map future 3D scaling. However, commercial chip foundries resist this change because it would make it harder to calculate commercial yields and thermal density limits using standard industry formulas.

https://share.google/aimode/Z5BqUjlZWFNphm6Z6

Density is mass per volume so how are you comparing it to a planar transistor? Your units don't even match.

Shareholders didn't like it. At the end of the day Meta is an advertising company so everything they do must be in service of increasing revenue from advertising.

Something for future generations to figure out with their AI chatbots.

This is correct. The most valuable form of data for any AI company is corrective feedback from real use cases.

Argument from ignorance is not as well known as other fallacies but very common in discussions about sentience, consciousness, and computability, i.e. not having evidence for something doesn't mean that thing is false. It is possible there are physical processes that are not computable & not being aware of such processes doesn't mean the alternative (everything is computable) is true.

So instead of making any unjustifiable claims like "everything physical is computable" you should instead just say "I believe consciousness is computable and that is why it is possible to instantiate it on any computational substrate, including strategy games like Age of Empires, properly arranged dominoes, and water wheels".

Physically describable doesn't mean computable. You're making too many unjustified logical leaps which makes your argument circular & conflates "physical" w/ "computable".

That says every LTL formula can be compiled into UHAT w/ polynomial overhead. It doesn't say that all languages recognizable w/ UHATs necessarily do not have succinct recgonizers in LTLs or RNNs.

Edit: Actually nevermind. If UHAT could be compiled into LTL w/ polynomial overhead then that would also work for the languages that have exponential overhead in LTL but since they don't there is a strict separation.

What about the other direction? What languages are expressible w/ RNNs & LTLs that require exponential blowup for transformers?

"Moreover, it must be confessed that perception and that which depends upon it are inexplicable on mechanical grounds, that is to say, by means of figures and motions. And supposing there were a machine, so constructed as to think, feel, and have perception, it might be conceived as increased in size, while keeping the same proportions, so that one might go into it as into a mill. That being so, we should, on examining its interior, find only parts which work one upon another, and never anything by which to explain a perception."

- Monadology, Section 17

Conscious self-awareness is neither scale invariant nor independent of substrate. Computational theories will never account for it b/c computational abstractions are both scale invariant & substrate independent.

However, our system relies on frontier LLMs, whose compute costs still remain nontrivial. Moreover, each textbook was formalized in isolation, without the careful planning needed to make it maximally compatible with existing mathlib infrastructure. Human involvement currently remains necessary to handle such organisational concerns — selecting and ordering books in a dependency-aware manner, bridging mismatched conventions across sources, etc

if f and g are algebraically equivalent programs then FPSan(f) and FPSan(g) produce identical results when given identical inputs

Ok, but we want the other direction. If FPSan(f) & FPSan(g) produce identical results for identical inputs then we want to conclude that f & g are also equivalent. If g is an "optimized" version of f then this would allow checking equivalence but that's not what they are proving or maybe they are but it looks like the converse is contingent on an unproven conjecture.