Except... the FSF is actually on the extreme opposite end of this issue. They do formal copyright assignment from the GNU contributors to the FSF. This way, they have a centralized final say on enforcement that is resistant to copyleft trolls, but it ultimately allows the theoretical possibility of a rugpull.
If it's googling repeatedly (every 15 minutes!) and then processing the results with LLMs, how does it avoid hallucinations? The problem with these models is that even extremely marginal hallucinations become inevitable with enough samples, so I'm skeptical that this wouldn't cause a ton of false positives.
The sound design complements it extremely well. It's a lot like that classic sphere eversion film Outside In produced by The Geometry Center, which uses different sound effects to build up the steps in the explanation, subtly helping the audience not lose track of what's going on.
...Maybe there should be more music in math class?
How is this the same thing but without video? This doesn't even mention the unique visualization used in the video, which most people familiar with this topic have never seen before.
It didn't work, it was an utterly terrible idea and they are almost certainly lying about the sentiment that it "worked". No ability to perform maintenance is a complete nonstarter. Communications and power is a nightmare to get right. The thermal management story sucks - just because you have metal touching water doesn't mean you have effective radiation of heat. Actually scaling it up is nearly impossible because you need thicker and more expensive vessels the bigger it gets. The problems go on and on.
> Among the components crated up and sent to Redmond are a handful of failed servers and related cables. The researchers think this hardware will help them understand why the servers in the underwater datacenter are eight times more reliable than those on land.
> “We are like, ‘Hey this looks really good,’” Fowers said. “We have to figure out what exactly gives us this benefit.”
> The team hypothesizes that the atmosphere of nitrogen, which is less corrosive than oxygen, and the absence of people to bump and jostle components, are the primary reasons for the difference. If the analysis proves this correct, the team may be able to translate the findings to land datacenters.
> “Our failure rate in the water is one-eighth of what we see on land,” Cutler said. “I have an economic model that says if I lose so many servers per unit of time, I’m at least at parity with land,” he added. “We are considerably better than that.”
Because despite being more reliable and energy efficient the other costs associated with it were higher. It is one thing to dunk 14.3m L x 12.7m D in the ocean for a 240 kW setup in the ocean. It is another to scale that up to a "full scale" data center that is about 200x larger that has additional electrical supply challenges.
Let's say that pod needs to be serviced once every two years. That means having a ship that services one pod every 3 days when scaled up.
From the standpoint of a single pod data center and "does this work?" - the answer is "yes, it works better than we thought it would." From the standpoint of "can we scale this to a full data center?" - the answer is "we'd need a ship servicing a twice a week, with the logistics that entails for the ship (and backup ship)." That second part becomes less practical compared to building a data center on terra firma where it's much easier to walk into a building to service it and hook up the power.
I don't think MS ever revealed enough information to answer that. For example, I haven't seen any explanation of how heat is transferred from the servers to the skin of the container. I can guess how they did it but I don't want to make any judgement based on guesses.
So we don't get the security benefits or accessibility. I'm not sure what is being solved. I'm all for a modern display system, I'm just not convinced the security claims are in anyway justified.
