Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Unfortunately, it seems like this was written by someone without a science or engineering background.

Here are some errors in content or presentation:

1. "Concrete jungle"... assuming gravity is supplied through rotation, the structure would be under constant tension, which makes concrete a very bad choice of material.

2. "Synthesized photosynthesis"... "Photosynthesis" is a process, "synthesize" is what you do to a substance. "Artificial photosynthesis" is the correct term.

3. "Renewable energy, however, will never live up to its promises. Hydrogen will be abundant from synthesized photosynthesis"... Artificial photosynthesis is a renewable energy source, so it is contradictory to say that renewable energy will never live up to its promises.

Here are some criticisms:

1. "AI" is a dream of the 1960s, we now understand that the problem with AI is that we don't understand "intelligence" with sufficient depth to describe what makes an AI different from an ordinary computer problem. I would say "automated mission to Europa" instead of "AI mission to Europa".

2. I don't think wired infrastructure will go a way. We are addicted to bandwidth and fiber is the way to get it. We will only use wireless at the bottom two levels or so.

3. Protein will be significantly less difficult to supply than suggested.

When I read this, I feel like I'm reading predictions of a global network of flying zeppelins from the early 1900s. That's not to say it's avoidable. It's not avoidable. We can only really predict what will happen in the absence of technological revolutions.

What's really missing is a description of what humans will do for a living. White collar jobs are getting automated, and everyone graduating collage is competing with the people who used to do what the computers do, except for the percentage of graduates in the non-automated fields (like software development).

You're right—I'm more of a software background—all this is from sci-fi; not grounded. Definitely things I don't know, and I really like your points. Thanks for reading, by the way.

To your point, photosynthesis—yes, it should be called artificial photosynthesis; I had linked to that wikipedia page—I'll strike out and change that on the post.

And Antarctica is unlikely to host many servers because it has long latency, no power generation, and an unclear legal environment.

Not to mention the environmental concerns with putting industrial complexes in one of our most pristine environments.

The legal environment could be cleared up, if nations had some motivation to do the negotiating and paperwork. Latency would matter less if lots of servers were all hosted there :) And as for power, there's no NIBMYs to complain about nuclear power down there!

latency matters if your users are all spread over the country, at the speed of light it takes at least 47.33 ms, I just went to speed test and my ping was 16 ms for a server 20-30 miles away. so you could use Antarctica for mass data storage or processing. so it would work for archiving

So you're saying Antarctica would be a good fit for Amazon Glacier (https://aws.amazon.com/glacier/)?

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact