No it isn't a great use case. It is a pandora's box. Mass manufacturing of nuclear devices used at sites with fewer or no top-notch experts, less stability beca

No it isn't a great use case. It is a pandora's box. Mass manufacturing of nuclear devices used at sites with fewer or no top-notch experts, less stability because of the smaller volume, much more pressure on costs (because some things don't scale with the power output) and many, many more units where something can go wrong. Microsoft isn't even able to secure their Azure cloud or their products. Why do you think they will do so much better with nuclear energy? Will they automatically insure the whole region against an incident? Will they automatically pay all the damages such a case? How about the things that money cant buy such as stillborn babies, early death, mutations, the effects of extreme stress during a catastrophe? And if they contain an incident, will they pay the full clean up and permanent storage of the mess? Also, nuclear reactors tend to have a long life-time. What will happen at the end or should Microsoft as a company go out of business? I really think we need to be a lot more humble with nuclear energy. The last cost savings caused Chernobyl to be such a disaster. Even the Japanese couldn't handle the power of nature, which was to some degree foreseeable.