I absolutely appreciate and agree with the sentiment, but can't figure out what the proposition actually is. The thesis seems to be: "Here's a problem. We want to solve it." Aaaaaaaaaaaand ... that's it. Exactly how are you going to solve it? Or, if "exactly" is too much of an ask, could we at least have a "vaguely"? Seems like it needs more meat on the bones!
It says so on the tin. "Escape the chokehold of hyperscalers" is all that matters, really. Everything else will follow nicely from it. Compute density is so good these days, you don't even need major datacenter investment. There are modular DC designs that fit in a shipping container. You tow one around, connect power, fiber, cooling lines (to intercoolers in another shipping container) and that's it. You would be surprised how much can be accomplished with so very little. There are many advantages to this approach, like being able to bring up SCIF-equivalent inspectable spaces on the cheap, but considering we're all probably going to war sooner than later, it might as well become necessary. This is akin to how SAAB, and perhaps to a larger extent Ukraine, have changed airplane logistics.
Unless you're a hyperscaler yourself, hyperscaling is overrated.
Great, now how do you make that actually happen at a political / regulatory / cultural level?
It's already an uphill battle, because humans in large organisations seem to have an innately conservative bias which says that "nobody ever got fired for choosing ${giganticEvilStatusQuoCorporation}". That, combined with the fact that the US hyperscalars have, I dunno, hundreds of billions of dollars worth of ability to put their thumb on the political and regulatory scales, make this an uphill battle. There will need to be a specific plan for leveling the playing field.
I'm at a point in my life (personal bandwidth hovering near 0%) where I'm not getting involved in anything unless I have not just a good reason ("this is a noble agenda; somebody should do something about it, and hey, I guess I'm a somebody"), but a damned specific reason ("I have unique capabilities which can help this specific initiative in this specific way").
Anyhow, in this particular domain, I'm pretty sure there are people who could be MUCH more useful contributors than I. I'd love to forward the "manifesto" to them -- except I know that they're in the same position as me: essentially zero bandwidth. Any new project they get involved with means dropping something else that's currently on their plate, and is presumably important. They're not going to do that on a lark. They'll need need a damned good reason to participate, before deciding to spend time on something new.
To be honest, ANY real power-players will be in this position. They don't have free time on their hands; they won't just join up in the vague hope that maybe it'll be a place where things can happen. You will need power-players on-side, and without a much more specific proposition, you're not going to get them.
But I'm glad you've joined. Job no. 1: that manifesto needs to do a lot more manifesting before it's fit for purpose!
Agreed. There are mountains that don't survive getting crushed between two icebergs. If the sphere were made of solid tungsten, then okay, I'd buy it. Short of that, I have doubts.
Eh, they got further than New Glenn did on its first attempt, and it succeeded on its second. They obviously made it through re-entry / retropropulsion in one piece and with a stable attitude, which is an achievement in itself. Looks like an engine exploded at the start of the braking burn -- or in any case, they suddenly start combusting a whole lot of stuff that isn't methane. But that might just be a single point failure, and a whole lot had to go right for them to get this far. It's reasonable that they could succeed on their next attempt.
Airship To Orbit is JP Aerospace, not Bigelow. It seems like an utterly bonkers and fairly implausible concept and I'm definitely not equipped to analyze its merits. But the JP team have some legitimate accomplishments in the rockoon world, and appear to be honest, hardworking people. Definitely not grifters. I've been following their work on ATO since they first announced it at a Space Access conference in ... 2003, I think? Still can't figure out whether it's real or not.
Yeah, airship to orbit might still be a question mark, but there is a significant overlap in other useful areas.
You should be for example totally able to build an inflatable frame for a launch loop, making it possible to launch payloads from above most of the atmosphere.
Also for re-entry the more you lower the density of something, the less re-entry stresses there will be. So you could construct a giant low-pressure inflatable decelerator device and have it essentially float down all the way from orbit, incrementally shedding energy as it comes down over a longer period of time, taking care to balance the rate of descent, heating and internal/external pressures.
Personal anecdote time, which enough time has passed that it can finally be told.
About 30 years ago, a family came down from the mountains near San Luis Obispo to ask whether my mother could teach them piano. They were an unusual family -- a mother and a number of children; apparently their father wouldn't leave his homestead up in the mountains. The children were all homeschoooled. They were perhaps a bit raggedy, but all quite brilliant and free-thinking, and quickly became excellent piano players. Our family became friends with theirs, and eventually we were invited to visit their homestead up in the mountains.
The homestead was an off-grid hand-built house and working organic dairy farm, lovingly stuffed to the rafters with various arts and crafts, including a large collection of medieval-style musical instruments which the patriarch of the family, Hal, had built by hand. Hal was an enigma within an enigma: he refused to talk about his past, looked like a Santa-clause mountain man, wouldn't engage with the outside world in person, but was relentlessly curious about it -- able to keep up with conversations about the latest in politics and technology. He also had a keen interest in the archaeology of the upper Colorado plateau, and soon we were making trips to the Cal Poly library to check out the latest archaeology books on his behalf. One day, on a whim, we looked for his name in the index of one of those books, and that's when we found out that we already knew who he was.
Haldon Chase[1] had been at the absolute epicenter of the Beat movement. He was the one who introduced Allen Ginsberg to Jack Kerouac, and most of the other Beats to each other. He'd gone by pseudonym "Chad King" in "On the Road". At the time he didn't have a Wikipedia entry, and at the time all anybody knew is that he had vanished at some point. Of course my family felt privileged to know the rest of the story.
Thinking now about Hal's life, in the few retrospectives I've seen of it, he's framed as having rejected the whole Beat lifestyle. I'm not sure that's accurate. In many ways the life he managed to carve out for himself was the apotheosis of much of the beat philosophy: genuinely free-thinking, self-reliant, non-conformist, creative, and in his way, spiritual. All very Beat. What he certainly rejected was the the limelight. The publicity, the drama, the ego. He wanted absolutely nothing to do with any of that. So he managed to get away and just live a good (if unconventional) life. His kids have all gone on to live really good, non-messed-up lives as well.
So when reading stories about messed-up Beats and their messed-up kids, it's worth considering that there's a kind of anti-survivor-bias at play: where everything worked out, where the trauma didn't explode dramatically or get passed down the generations, you're probably not going to hear about it.
That's great story and a wonderful counterexample to what I wrote above. Thank you!
Edit: you got me thinking about one other counterexample, which is the part of the "Children of the Beats" interview with the daughter of Amiri Baraka (LeRoi Jones). She doesn't go into much detail but it definitely doesn't sound tragic.
Not explicitly arguing against the thesis of the website, but showing trend lines which allegedly started in 2007 with data that starts in 2006 is... Not convincing.
Also worth noting that a lot of the graphs (the ACT scores in particular) are constructed to show a downward trend but really seem to be measuring the COVID pandemic more directly.
That is exactly the bad analysis I was calling out.
If you take a data set and point out (while squinting) that it appears maybe to be turning down in the last two data points, any reasonable analyst should point out that those look like routine outliers and that if you want to project a trend you need more data.
Instead, you'd taking a very large (and well understood) signal in the next 5-ish data points and saying that it's proof of the trend. Which is silly.
No, that chart shows covid, period. If someone wants to show an uncorrelated effect across a signal that big, they need to come to the table with a lot more sophistication than a "WTF Happened?" blog post.
Fine, the dips 2018-2019 could very well be noise and we don't dont know if that trend would have borne out after 2020. However, the ACT and SAT composites gradually declined following peaks in 07 and 12, respectively, given the available data.
Come on. Extremely mildly down-sloping if at all, and without anything like an inflection point that would justify "WTF Happened in 2007?"
You can't do this like this. I mean, you sort of can if the effect is big enough (c.f. the 1971 site which inspired this one, and which makes a much better case). But if you can't eyeball a very clear angle in the chart without argument, you need to come to the table with some kind of fitted curve and real research.
Exactly, I've been net-addicted since .. uh, BBS culture in the late 80s, and I almost never use my smartphone but have my laptop or computer screen in front of me most of the day. I don't feel much better held together than my teens with their phones.
You are absolutely not the typical person. The vast majority of people, and 100% of the people born after 2007, are deeply affected by smartphones. I know I am!
Yes, it would be absolutely irrational and indefensible to block people from building solar farms where there is a straightforward commercial case for doing so. Unfortunately, "irrational and indefensible" is exactly what this administration is: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/oct/10/trump-offici...
Transport planner here. Haven't played either game, but it sounds like Motorways has an accurate model behind it. That's how the real world works, too.
c'mon man just build us one more lane, we can get you additional traffic flow next year, you know we're good for it just one more lane will fix all our the problems
reply