Cite your source. No where are they told that less of them is better.

The hypocrisy of this when they’re chugging power for AI…

To spell it out for you, Just because something is well established in the industry does not make it good.

You miss their point

I am referring to commercial speculation, and I literally laid this out in the second sentence, thanks!

Nuclear, or if you want space stuff, build a station at the Lagrange point and sling from there? I don’t need to be an expert in launch solutions to know that we shouldn’t speculate mining the moon till it’s well researched and that we have more accessible options here for the forseeable future with solar as my choice of example, so let’s not jump the gun on another finite resource?

it’s not the answer to every situation

Actually, better than that, I’m not an expert! There are professionals whose jobs are to design those systems and could do better than I putting together a solution. However, more destruction of finite resources when there is easy access to an unlimited resource should be limited to final resorts.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

More Wensleydale for me then :3

Though, of course, simple scientific curiosity may not justify the enormous cost of the undertaking. That’s where commercial interest comes in.

That’s not what this is about, the author doesn’t care about that, all they see is a finite, exploitable resource that will line their pockets.

However, to answer your question, we already have that technology.

Laughs in electric train

Imagine claiming mining helium is the solution when free energy is right there radiating from the sun.

Y2K finally happening!

Because they’re the ones that constantly make a fuss and are overall holding back the computing world by supporting a malicious organization that has a choke hold.

Yeah but we care that youre not.