I see two really good ideas for monetizing the free tier for consumers.
Firstly, if the user is asking for things where AI can link to products or services to buy, there's a very good relevancy, much higher than in other types of ads.
Secondly, since the AI often takes time to compute answers to user's questions, they could be shown ads while waiting. People could perhaps be less annoyed by this than some other commercials since they know the break has to be there anyway.
(First idea is something I came up when asking Claude to compare some products, or ask for help in lawn care. Second idea was by a colleague.)
Ramjets were developed right after the second world war and Mach 4+ was reached in the fifites. It's complicated but not extremely. See Antonio Ferri or Lockheed X-7.
It turned out out solid fuel rockets are operationally more practical for the use cases like air defence, long range missiles that are ballistic instead of cruising in the atmosphere and so on. And jet engines are more efficient for subsonic cruise missiles. Ramjets are still used in some missiles like the long range mach 3 air-to-air Meteor.
There have been air-to-air missiles using rocket-ramjet combinations: they start as a rocket, then once up to speed an inlet opens and they transition to ramjet mode (using the same chamber and nozzle). It extends range. Ramjets are best for maintaining speed rather than accelerating to speed.
...it never went into an actually flying airplane though (apparently there were test flights with Lorin tubes attached to propeller planes, but only to test the Lorin tube behaviour under flight conditions, not as an engine replacement).
The idea and patent itself is over a century old by now:
Just because you don't understand how something can work doesn't make it ludicrous. People like you are hell bent on destroying what's left of the Earth by turning it into a computer. If we left progress to those without an imagination, we wouldn't even have had a working calculator.
It's the physics of cooling the beasts and the communication delays that make those plans ludicrous.
To turn your assertion on its head, the fact that the supporters don't seem to be able (or willing) to do the math to fact check these proposals is not an indicator that the plans will work.
As a starting point for comparison, the total power budget of the ISS is under 100kW and a single supercomputer rack dissipates about 4x that. What changes to the ISS can be made to get 100x more power and dissipate 100x more heat?
Oh I have done the math. There are multiple ways to get cooling to work in space:
1. There is no real size limit to radiators in space, especially when in solar orbit.
2. High temperature chip architectures can be used, operating at 600K.
3. Heat pipes can bring the temperature even higher, such as to 1200K.
4. Special 3D radiator geometries can be used to optimize heat escape.
5. Metamaterials can be used to optimize photon emission in the best directions.
Together, these will shrink the required radiator area dramatically. Beyond these standard ideas, other exotic approaches exist at the edge of viability.
The ISS in contrast is restricted considering it has to sit in Earth orbit.
You misused a comma; it doesn't belong where you used it.
Just because there are ninety nine ways to do something wrong doesn't mean there couldn't exist one way to do it right. In the case of space datacenters, there absolutely exists a way to do it effectively. Dumb VCs will never know the difference.
Hmm one would expect heat expansion to change the length of fiber over tens of kilometers. Does it also affect light speed in the fiber? I think consumer fiber is not buried very deep on average, but maybe for these use cases you use something hefty anyway.
I think there's also some exaggerations about the differing highway landing capabilities of various aircraft. [1] is a video showing Eurofighter, F/A-18 and F-35 all landing on a highway in an exercise. Capability with stores and fuel load is another thing but I've read material that doesn't find the contemporary aircraft drastically different in that regard. Now, maintenance hours per flight hour and general operability certainly are interesting topics and there could be large differences.
Landing is the trivial part, though the USAF traditions of "FOD walk" do seem funny to air forces where donations you found out the aircraft spent whole day flying with maintenance toolkit left in intake.
The maintenance is the real difference - US specifically USAF gear is designed for nice air conditioned hangars to do regular maintenance, Gripen, MiG-29, and to way lower effect F-18 (when compared with F-16) - the first two assume forward bases without ability to do major maintenance, and even the latter (and other carrier adapted ones) promote things like quick swap engines because that's no space for hangar queen to have deep engine maintenance just so engine vendor can claim long time between overhauls
The main reason the Mig29s have a reputation for easy maintenance is because they don't replace parts, they just throw away the whole airframe. The structural and engine service life is like 1/10th that of western fighters.
Not really. This "reputation" is based on misunderstanding of differences in doctrine.
The engines did have lower overall hours, yes, but the suggestion they need whole overhaul after very few hours is because it looks so when looking at it from USAF doctrine where "removing engine and sending it to special facility" is only for rare complete overhauls, and local mechanics are supposed to do regular minor work all the time.
MiG-29 instead was done under doctrine that the airbase does not have mechanics capable of doing such overhaul, nor the facilities to do so, and instead you swap the engine and send the used one to maintenance facilities further away from the front, same with other aggregates.
As a native non Indo European language speaker, aware of the many differences to Indo European languages, it is noteworthy that this however is similar in both. Oikea ja vasen, right and left. Oikea ja väärä, right and wrong.
In clothing you have the right side and the reverse side while here it's oikea ja nurja. Again similarities but nurja has this twisted and dark connotation. Or upside down = nurinperin.
Does anyone know if there's ever been any sort of proper retrospective why the forestry policies of many countries have been so disruptive. Ie supposedly the most organized, high trust, low corruption and scientific societies in the world like Finland and Japan have done some very drastic and unnatural forestry measures that cause effects to this day. It is different than some countries where rampant illegal logging has just destroyed the land, sure. But it's been terrible in other ways. Destruction of biodiversity, destruction of water. In Finland at least the policies have been absolutely forced by law and have sent people to prison and mental institutions. And the land and future generations will suffer for a thousand years. And now some of the policies have been completely reversed - as if nothing had happened. It's this completely parallel bizarre world.
Could we at least look at these tragedies honestly and openly, and learn something from them.
Most common video seems to be a balloon filmed sideways from a fast flying aircraft, with parallax giving the illusion that the balloon moves very fast.
Firstly, if the user is asking for things where AI can link to products or services to buy, there's a very good relevancy, much higher than in other types of ads.
Secondly, since the AI often takes time to compute answers to user's questions, they could be shown ads while waiting. People could perhaps be less annoyed by this than some other commercials since they know the break has to be there anyway.
(First idea is something I came up when asking Claude to compare some products, or ask for help in lawn care. Second idea was by a colleague.)
reply