Technology

58997 readers

4309 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

666

Google adopts small nuclear power reactors at unprecedented scale — inks deal for seven reactors to feed AI data centers (www.tomshardware.com)

submitted 2 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

208 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] towerful 13 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

I agree, and it is possibly the only good thing to come out of AI.
Like people asking "why do we need to go to the moon?!".

Fly-by-wire (ie pilot controls decoupled from physical actuators), so modern air travel.

Integrated circuits (IE multiple transistors - and other components - in the same silicon package). Basically miniaturisation and reduction in power consumption of computers.

GPS. The Apollo missions lead to the rocket tech/science for geosynchronous orbits require for GPS.

This time it is commercial.
I'd rather the power requirements were covered by non-carbon sources. However it proves the tech for future use.

For a similar example, I have a strong dislike of Elon Musk. He has ruined the potential of Twitter and Tesla, but SpaceX has had some impressive accomplishments.

Google are a shitty company. I wish the nuclear power went towards shutting down carbon power.
But SOMEONE has to take the risk. I wish that someone was a government. But it's Google. So.... Kind of a win?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I'd rather the power requirements were covered by non-carbon sources

Is nuclear not?

[–] towerful 1 points 2 weeks ago

I forgot what I was trying to say there.
I think it's along the lines of "I'd rather we didn't need a ridiculous amount of new power, but at least it's being covered by non-carbon sources".