Or when the gov du jour is for sale, they can do whatever they want because they and their CEO can afford just about any price.

It's saving face. It lets them bail out without actually badmouthing Flock or any related companies, which, yes, lets them do it again later.

If Guile had more of the "batteries" from the Gauche standard library it might be the perfect all-purpose Scheme. But for just writing a simple application quickly and easily it's been impossible to beat Gauche for me, it's on par with Python and Ruby in that regard IMO.

What kind of application do you write in Gauche?

I am asking, because I might want to get more familiar with it, if it is great for something like GUI or web app. I know there is Guile Golf, but to me it feels unfinished, and I experienced segfaults and crashes, when not doing things exactly as shown in examples and using standard GTK procedures, so that one is kind of out for me, and guile-gi is still changing and seemed kinda complicated to use. On the web front, there is Artanis, but it is too opinionated for me, not a minimalistic framework. Still can build things on top of guile fibers concurrent web server, but then have to build lots of things myself.

Recently, I used Python and tkinter, which works really well, and I would love to have good bindings for tk in Guile.

On my search for Scheme and GUI, I also found stklos, but I have no idea how ready it is and what kind of libraries I would have available, if I built an application with it.

Racket of course also has a GUI framework, that I have tried to use in the past, but it does not have a treeview widget. Has listbox though, with multiple columns.

What does Gauche have to offer, specifically for application development? (GUI, or web, or other)

I should clarify that the "applications" I write are usually command line tools. I don't think I've ever written a full working GUI application, although now with AI I bet it would be fast and easy to bang something together.

Interesting timing, the Park Tool Youtube presenter just retired. The guy with the big mustache.

Data centers in space have never been a thing and never will be.

Low orbit satellites providing internet across the world also weren't a thing... until they were.

The biggest problem with satellite internet was the costs involved, which SpaceX has pretty much solved.

Datacenters in space, on the other hand, are a terrible idea because of the laws of physics, which will not get "solved" anytime soon. But don't take it from me, listen to this guy with a PhD in space electronics who worked at NASA and Google:

https://taranis.ie/datacenters-in-space-are-a-terrible-horri...

Check the authors history. They are both anti AI and anti Elon. I think I feel a lot more confident staying optimistic and assuming that the SpaceX and xAI team have done their research about this. I know a lot of people are heavily biased in this matter due to politically not liking Elon or not liking AI, but I also think it's fair to say these companies have many very smart individuals working for them. If they have come to the conclusion that this is viable, then I have much more faith in what they are saying over one guys opinion who is biased against them and saying it's a bad idea.

You're also passing these judgements without knowing their full plan. Maybe we only know one part of the plan and maybe other details have not been announced. They may have a much bigger plan for this than just the specific information we have.

Having previously criticized someone doesn't make your technical analysis biased. It just means you noticed similar problems previously. Conversely, "I used to support him so I'm not biased" is given unearned credibility when really it just means you were late to noticing the obvious.

Technical analysis most definitely can be biased due to political leanings. This is why there is the whole idea that research can often be bought and paid for to get the results you desire. Because they are biased with money. Certain ideas or theories of how things could be done could very easily be overlooked or excluded by someone trying to dig for reasons to say something won't work.

What I am saying is that clearly SpaceX/xAI feel that this is a viable option based on many experts research/facts that are more knowledgeable than a single bloggers opinion. If I am thinking rationally why would I choose to believe a single random person over a group of experts banking A LOT of money that they have a solution that works?

You are arguing against something I didn't say. I never claimed bias doesn't exist. My point is that having previously criticized someone is not evidence of bias. You are treating "this person has been critical before" as inherently discrediting, when it is just as likely they were right before and are right again now. Conversely, "I used to support him so I am not biased" is given unearned credibility when really it just means you were late to noticing the obvious, or got it wrong previously.

As for dismissing the article: the author has a PhD in space electronics, worked at NASA, and spent a decade at Google including on AI capacity deployment. He walks through power, thermal, radiation, and communications constraints with actual numbers. You do not get to hand-wave that away with "he is anti-Elon" and then defer to "the team spending the most money." That is not rational analysis, that is fandom.

And the idea that SpaceX's experts looked at this and concluded the combination makes strategic sense - seriously? This is the same playbook Musk has run repeatedly: SolarCity into Tesla, X into xAI, now xAI into SpaceX. Every time there is a struggling asset that needs a lifeline, it gets folded into a healthier entity with Musk negotiating on both sides. xAI is burning $1B/month. There is already a fiduciary duty lawsuit over Tesla's $2B investment in xAI. The "space data centers" rationale is a pretext for giving xAI investors an exit through SpaceX's upcoming IPO. This is not a strategic vision, it is financial engineering solving an obvious problem for Elon.

Meanwhile, Grok has been generating sexualized images of children, the California AG has opened a formal investigation, the UK Internet Watch Foundation found CSAM attributed to Grok on the dark web, Musk personally pushed to loosen Grok's safety restrictions after which three safety team members quit, and xAI's response to press inquiries was the auto-reply "Legacy Media Lies." This is the company whose judgment you are trusting over a domain expert's detailed technical analysis.

It doesn't matter what their perceived, by you, biases are. WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO WITH ALL THAT HEAT?

I guess you'll have to wait and see what ideas they have to deal with this. If they can't manage the heat they aren't going to spend billions launching these things just for fun.

Which is precisely why I said originally that data centers in space have never been a thing and will never be a thing. Because the whole premise is "it's cold in space so that's great for data centers", but that fundamental premise is fundamentally wrong and based in a misunderstanding of the physics involved. There is no other redeeming argument for it, therefore it's not going to happen. Anyone trying to sell you on data centers in space is grifting.

it's crypto-fascist misogynoir!

Sort of? You want something that's going to actually affect the corporations involved. It's not about showing effort, because the government doesn't care how much effort you put in. It's about showing power, making a statement that we "the people" have power and can use it if you don't do what we want. A long-term "nonessentials boycott" might be more impactful in that sense.

Back when IBM Watson was a thing, the rumor I heard was that it was actually just a big team of data people and programmers who would bang out stuff in a hurry and then they would pretend like the AI came up with it.

Imagine that! It's almost like it's coordinated. Surely the US government would never do something like that on purpose.

I can't imagine Donald Trump would harm the US on purpose.

He absolutely would harm some people in the US to benefit other people in the US. The same is true for many many other businesspeople and politiciansl

Time to start including deliberate bugs. The correct version is in a private repository.

And what purpose would this serve, exactly?

Spite.

They used to do this with maps - eg. fake islands - to pick up when they were copied.

while I think this is a fun idea -- we are in such a dystopian timeline that I fear you will end up being prosecuted under a digital equivalent of various laws like "why did you attack the intruder instead of fleeing" or "you can't simply remove a squatter because its your house, therefore you get an assault charge."

A kind of "they found this code, therefore you have a duty not to poison their model as they take it." Meanwhile if I scrape a website and discover data I'm not supposed to see (e.g. bank details being publicly visible) then I will go to jail for pointing it out. :(

I think if we're at the point where posting deliberate mistakes to poison training data is considered a crime, we would be far far far down the path of authoritarian corporate regulatory capture, much farther than we are now (fortunately).

Thanks that was the term I was looking for "attractive nuisance". I wouldn't be surprised if a tech company could make that case -- this user caused us tangible harm and cost (training, poisoned models) and left their data out for us to consume. Its the equivalent of putting poison candy on a park table your honor!

That reminds me of the protagonist of Charles Stross's novel "Accelerando", a prolific inventor who is accused by the IRS to have caused millions of losses because he releases all his ideas in the public domain instead of profiting from them and paying taxes on such profits.