I'm not sure if this is satire (I mean no offense), but its exactly what I'm talking about.
There's nothing 'chilling' about being in the shade in space. Radiating large amounts of power is immensely difficult and, in fact, a huge engineering challenge for speculative spacecraft designs, like reactor-powered rockets.
My favorite 'speculative space travel' site has a utterly fantastic writeup on this: https://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/heatrad.php
As it points out, it's already a costly challenge on the ISS and Space Shuttle:


...And that doesn't even matter, because it's utterly dwarfed by the stupendous cost of getting even a pound into LEO in the first place. Or the absolutely monumental cost of any kind of maintenance (or equipment writeoffs) if something breaks. Hence I'm ignoring other extreme engineering challenges, like bit-flips from cosmic radiation (which Nvidia tested on the ISS, and which gets worse as lithography gets smaller), or complexities of connecting structures in space (hence this firm).
https://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/engines.php#rockettyranny
Hence, the only things that go in space are things that absolutely must, like low volume scientific equipment. Its more practical to just put servers under antarctica because it's still at least 50X cheaper to install them, run them, and maintain them there.
Hence, my point. Folks like Bezos aren't expected to know esoteric, theoretical stuff. They're business folks. But they should know enough to ask someone qualified to asses their fantasies.