221–230 of 242 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nope. Northern Virginia communities, for example, have seen significant budgetary wins from data center buildout over the past decade.
Those previously completed projects in NV are completely unlike the ones currently being proposed and protested
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For two reasons: 1. They create externalities 2. They generate an economic flux that can be taxed
So where were you in last 20 years asking for tax on DCs?
The energy usage of these new datacenters is unlike anything we've previously seen. The closest we've seen was crypto mining and people certainly protested that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You tax the revenue that the entity that owns the datacentre generates, like any other business. Am I missing something?
The entities that own the data centers (the mag7) famously do not pay much in taxes due to their extensive use of tax havens and loopholes
Earlier quoted context omitted.
GGP didn't say ERCOT, they said "Texas". Which further demonstrates how ignorant it is to say there are "no major connections".
Here's some reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Interconnection Most of Texas is on this grid, not connected to any other states. The total amount of power that can flow between the Texas Interconnect and the rest of the US grid is a small fraction of the Texas grid's demand. That was the point being made by the original commenter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Blocking is easy, UN-blocking is hard (see: zoning and housing). There are no objective concerns to be met, and there will never be. I would bet a lot of money the moratorium is indefinitely extended every year. Always thought letting populism define a "slow-down" was silly, its a moratorium and a permanent veto everyone is looking for. It's fine, the data centers will be built elsewhere in more politically impoveris…
Good. AI is an evil technology. These data centers shouldn't be built anywhere ever.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
Please take a moment to review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and make an efort to take the intended spirit of the site more to heart.
I’ve been thinking about this lately after the Midtown Manhattan building renovation scare. The overall reporting included a discussion of engineering assumptions saying in effect an office building is designed and constructed with certain weight load assumptions based on the planned use. When performing a conversion those assumptions must be uncovered and evaluated for the new use. While that’s logically reasonable, evidently problematic in practice.
So the question in my mind is this, how do municipalities—especially in rural or suburban areas—come to an understanding of these buildings and their impact on the community? The state must move to slow down less cautious local governments from making bad deals.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
It was an awful comment and I've detached the subthread and warned them. But you can't comment like this on HN, no matter who or what you're replying to. Please take a moment to review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and make an efort to take the intended spirit of the site more to heart.
It is in the spirit of the site that I actually made an argument before doing so.
Had I not been so raw in my response to the poster, garnering flags and downvotes, I doubt that they would even have been addressed at all.