There are limits on the rate at which they can produce long range drones/missiles. Like Ukraine produces roughly 10-15k per day drones overall, but only a few hundred long-range drones capable of hitting Moscow, and a single attack takes many hundreds to over a thousand drones because most get intercepted, so it takes quite a few days to build up enough drones for an attack.

With this and the data center destruction in the Gulf, maybe in future countries will need to move to constructing datacenters deep underground to protect them. Probably more expensive, but I imagine still cheaper than building data centers in space.

And would actually be protected, unlike data centers in space

Data centers in space would be well protected from anyone but nation state level actors though. I always wonder if this is the real reason musk wants to do this. If AI will displace as many jobs as some people predict I'm sure many datacenters would be the target of angry pitchfork mobs.

A dedicated group of people with some engineering knowledge and an achievable amount of money could easily launch a missile into space. Getting to space is easy, staying in space is what's hard. You don't even need a warhead, as long as the missile intersects the data center's orbit, just hitting it at speed will have the same effect as a bomb.

The point is moot though, as data centers in space is a complete fantasy that will never happen.

>group of people with some engineering knowledge and an achievable amount of money could easily launch a missile into space<

ie. people like the German Isar Aerospace Startup, which raised 800 Millions just to get 2 launches done?

No - space is hard.

Staying in space is much easier when orbiting the sun.

Things in space would be safe, but not launch sites or factories or transportation on land.

Could they really though? Isn't it possible to focus some lasers from someone's backyard and cause damage?

People who aren't evil-minded don't go to work for a government organization responsible for constitution-violating surveillance of their fellow citizens.

They do, in droves. It's clear you don't know anything about the entire industry.

Normalize doing whatever we can do protect rights regardless of how many assholes voted to violate them.

>California is full of people who do not understand how investment works and want it gone

You're being too generous. California is full of envious dysgenics who want free stuff and don't care how they get it.

It's covetous to expect someone else to give you a part of something they worked for and you contributed nothing to. One of the basic 10 commandments is not to covet your neighbour's property; envy is a sin.

>did America's current Special Military Operation not make it clear that missiles alone don't win wars, and that there's fuck all you can do when the other side yeets their missiles at you in return?

Neither Putin nor his associates are religious fanatics happy to die for their cause, they're just money-loving strongmen. If faced with real danger they'd much rather do whatever they could to avoid dying, not risk being martyred.

Putin has backed himself into a corner. He has tied too much of his credibility to Ukraine, in turn if he loses Ukraine it is highly likely to loses his life in some "accident". He is smart enough to know that and so will double down as long as possible. Since his life is in danger anyway he has no reason to hesitate about using nuclear weapons if it looks like he is losing.

so in your educated opinion Putin will do nothing when NATO attacks Russia directly?

Deepseek harness is great!

>Also obligatory: Schmidhuber talked about this a long time ago.

And again recently: https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.11174

>The universe is bounded by rules

That's physics. Not all math is physics.

The universe imposes strict limits on the math that can exist within it, and certain broader limits on the math the creatures and well-organized sand within the universe can conceive of in the first place, whether or not it can maybe exist in other universes.

At those levels math and physics are the same bound: the bound of things the universe allows to be conceived of inside it.

It’s possible the math our monkey brains + sand can ever conceive of in this universe is a low and accessible amount.

> The universe imposes strict limits on the math that can exist within it, and certain broader limits on the math the creatures and well-organized sand within the universe can conceive of in the first place, whether or not it can maybe exist in other universes.

When you have a moment, please reference some proofs supporting this.

There are lots of thoughts you’re not biologically capable of thinking. That means the list of thoughts you’re capable of thinking is finite. That means the amount of math you’re capable of discovering, even if you lived forever, is finite.

That’s true of all humans and all constructs.

So however much math there is to discover, that’s the finite subset you’ll ever have access to.

It’s hard to prove what thoughts no human and no construct is capable of generating, but surely there are some, and it’s possible or even likely some of those are math-related.

Even if we accept that there are "lots of thoughts" we're not capable of thinking (though I wonder how you would define a thought if not as something that you can think), it still does not follow that the "amount of math" (as if it's a definite quantity) that one could discover is necessarily finite, if you lived forever.

By analogy, the "amount of math" we can possibly discover could still be countably infinite even if the space of all possible thoughts would be uncountably infinite. Countably infinite is still plenty big, and it is certainly not finite.

To put what I said another way, math may be infinite in principle, but the creatures in our universe can only conceive of or perceive so much of it: a finite amount.

We (or our constructs) can plausibly mine all there is and then there's no more that's physically possible for us or our constructs to mine within the universe in which we exist.

If an ant can't conceive of or perceive trigonometry that doesn't mean trigonometry doesn't exist. But if neither an ant nor a human nor any creature or construct or technology inside the current universe, now or ever, can conceive of or perceive trigonometry, then we might as well call it non-existent. It may exist: but we'd literally never know it and neither would our constructs or space aliens or inter-dimensional aliens, or their constructs, etc.

Say that there's a level of mathematics at which a blerg is a zorg, but our universe includes neither blergs nor zorgs and no intelligences in our universe can conceive of blergs/zorgs because that would require having evolved outside our universe... in that case we can consider our universe's mathematics solved without it needing to work down to the blerg and zorg level.

The natural numbers are countably infinite. For each n ∈ ℕ, there is a proof by reflexivity that n = n. Hence there are countably infinitely many such proofs, one for each natural number.

Please make substantive comments. Going around message boards demanding proofs is not conducive to good discussion.

I didn’t demand anything. I requested some proofs since this thread is quite literally about a claim that requires proofs. As evidenced by the further comments in the thread. If you disapprove of the conversation, please feel free to use the tools and move on. No hard feelings!

Please don’t use pedantry.

Which math is not physics (and chemistry)? Fundamentally, all these are same

The concept of infinity?

That's why it is a concept. We lack sufficient ability to measure physical world, introduce imperfect abstractions, thus need concepts like infinity.