MS NOW95%

I worked at The Washington Post for 28 years. Bezos’ cuts just ended the paper as we knew it.0%

By Glenn Kessler0%

2/5/2026, 2:00:53 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 8 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Pessimism Bias, and Slippery Slope, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 56.1% saturation with 277 hits. Analysis detected 773 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,211 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 0% and a BS Rank of 0% (0 of 21,164 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 100.00% of the article peer group.

Elon Musk wants to put AI data centers in orbit. 
A company in Redmond beat him to it. 
Elon Musk announced he had merged his rocket company, SpaceX, with his AI company, xAI, this week. 
His goal was to put data centers in orbit. 
But a small company called Starcloud in Redmond has already launched one. 
Starcloud's wisp of a cloud lives in a small box that orbits the earth. 
It runs Google's "Gemma" on an advanced NVIDIA chip. 
"It's just like Google Gemini or ChatGPT," said Saadia Pekkanen, who teaches space law and diplomacy at the University of Washington, "except it says very interesting things like, 'I'm right now over Africa. In 20 minutes ,I'll be in the Middle East.'" 
Starcloud-1 might be a simple box, but according to the company's website, Starcloud-2 will have large solar panels, unfurled like a red carpet to welcome the sun's energy. 
Later, Starcloud-4 would look more like a central spine with several shipping-container-sized server nodes plugged into it. 
Tech companies see space as a source of nearly unlimited cheap solar energy. 
Solar panels can be places in "sun-synchronous orbit," meaning they're almost never in shade. 
Pekkanen said competition for orbital space, especially in that orbit, is heating up. 
"You have limited real estate," she said. 
"You have many companies which are interested, but also many countries that are interested." 
It’s not necessarily a free-for-all... but it will get congested." 
That's one reason companies are racing to claim a spot in that orbit first. 
If you're there first, others must work around your satellites. 
"So, there will be something of first-mover advantage in getting into space in these particular orbits and staying there," Pekkanen said. 
Pekkanen warned that more satellites crowding each other in orbit will lead to collisions. 
Collisions can create debris fields that damage other spacecraft, snowballing into more crashes that can turn space into a chaotic field of junk flying at lethal speeds. 
She said companies must show they can safely dispose of satellites when they stop working. 
So, do we need to worry about satellite parts falling on our heads here on earth? 
"Objects fall out of orbit every day," she said. 
The reason why you don't hear about is because most of the planet is water. 
We have, fortunately, not had any huge accidents like that, but pieces are beginning to sort of fall out of the sky in remote areas and have been doing that for decades. 
The fear is that this may accelerate as mega constellations [of data centers] go into space. 
And the bigger fear is that, if this happens, what do we do? 
Pakkenen said we need international agreements ensuring that space remains safe and usable by many nations in the future. 
For that reason, she hosts a Space Diplomacy Symposium every year at UW. 
You can follow Dr. Pakkenen's work on her Substack, the Space Diplomacy Newsletter. 
Hear more stories like this on KUOW's economy podcast, Booming: 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Glenn Kessler: 15.6%MS NOW: 7.5%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Glenn Kessler: 3.2%MS NOW: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 1.8%Glenn Kessler: 20.0%MS NOW: 3.7%Availability Heuristic1.8%This article: 0.0%Glenn Kessler: 3.7%MS NOW: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Glenn Kessler: 3.4%MS NOW: 1.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Glenn Kessler: 7.5%MS NOW: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 53.2%Glenn Kessler: 18.9%MS NOW: 15.5%Framing Effect53.2%This article: 0.0%Glenn Kessler: 1.1%MS NOW: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Glenn Kessler: 0.8%MS NOW: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Glenn Kessler: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 2.6%Glenn Kessler: 1.6%MS NOW: 2.4%Optimism Bias2.6%This article: 22.7%Glenn Kessler: 7.0%MS NOW: 3.2%Pessimism Bias22.7%This article: 0.0%Glenn Kessler: 17.5%MS NOW: 19.3%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Glenn Kessler: 6.5%MS NOW: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Glenn Kessler: 7.9%MS NOW: 3.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Glenn Kessler: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Glenn Kessler: 7.7%MS NOW: 3.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Glenn Kessler: 4.2%MS NOW: 2.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Glenn Kessler: 18.1%MS NOW: 2.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Glenn Kessler: 2.2%MS NOW: 1.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Glenn Kessler: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Glenn Kessler: 1.0%MS NOW: 1.8%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Glenn Kessler: 1.9%MS NOW: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Glenn Kessler: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Glenn Kessler: 5.1%MS NOW: 4.7%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Glenn Kessler: 1.7%MS NOW: 1.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 56.1%Glenn Kessler: 20.5%MS NOW: 5.4%Appeal to Authority56.1%This article: 0.0%Glenn Kessler: 3.0%MS NOW: 2.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 11.5%Glenn Kessler: 10.0%MS NOW: 2.2%Slippery Slope11.5%This article: 0.0%Glenn Kessler: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 2.6%Glenn Kessler: 18.9%MS NOW: 8.1%Hasty Generalization2.6%This article: 0.0%Glenn Kessler: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Glenn Kessler: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 5.9%Glenn Kessler: 9.0%MS NOW: 9.8%Appeal to Emotion5.9%This article: 0.0%Glenn Kessler: 5.3%MS NOW: 2.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Glenn Kessler: 4.0%MS NOW: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Glenn Kessler: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Glenn Kessler: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.9%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Glenn Kessler: 0.4%MS NOW: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Glenn Kessler: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Glenn Kessler: 12.2%MS NOW: 2.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Glenn Kessler: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Glenn Kessler: 0.0%MS NOW: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Glenn Kessler: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Glenn Kessler: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Glenn Kessler: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.3%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Glenn Kessler: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Glenn Kessler: 3.8%MS NOW: 1.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Glenn Kessler: 1.7%MS NOW: 2.5%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Glenn Kessler: 42.0%MS NOW: 14.2%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Glenn Kessler: 8.1%MS NOW: 5.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Glenn Kessler: 1.2%MS NOW: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Glenn Kessler: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

494 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.