Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
[flagged]
They should not; however, why should others who did not vote for Republicans suffer their fate? Merely because they live in the same political boundary? Get real.
New York becomes the first state to impose a data center moratorium
231–240 of 242 posts
Re: New York becomes the first state to impose a data center moratorium
#232Could someone ELI5 why we need this many DCs without diving into environmental costs, blight on the landscape and electricity costs rising?
As in, do we functionally need them or is this a grift? It seems we are doing less with more. Is there anyone suffering or left out in the cold because we don't have enough compute? Why don't the companies that move more and more work to AI workflows build their own?
What if there is a breakthrough tomorrow and we don't need this much Nvidia silicon anymore, what happens?
Re: New York becomes the first state to impose a data center moratorium
#233Earlier quoted context omitted.
And then afterwards the electricity gets shut off to everyone who isn't a data center? That's what Georgia is threatening right now.
Do you ACTUALLY think that's a possibility? It's silly
It looks worse than that, in Georgia people are apparently being forced to sell their homes to handle the power requirements for datacenters: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/georgia-power-ai-data-centers-e...
Re: New York becomes the first state to impose a data center moratorium
#234Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Go ahead and ban me if you like, but if someone says I deserve a consequence by virtue of the political stance of unrelated people within the same political boundaries as I, then I am going to tell them to go fuck themselves. 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…
I wasn’t even considering banning you, and I agree it’s awful to wish harm on people like that.
But this site can only work if we have guidelines and uphold them evenly, and it only makes it harder to help and defend you if you act with contempt towards us and the guidelines.
> 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.
This is false, and offensive. We work hard to make this a place where everyone can express their point of view and where people are not vilified for having different points of view. We would absolutely ban someone who demonstrated a pattern of initiating such attacks on you.
The right way to deal with such attacks is to flag them and to email us (hn@ycombinator.com) to alert us to the attack, and we will always take action.
Re: New York becomes the first state to impose a data center moratorium
#235Earlier quoted context omitted.
>so we do see a loss in value there over decade(s) in many cases. Source? Maybe it was the case 10 years ago, but today with all the datacenter backlash it's hard to imagine anyone giving sweetheart deals to them.
10 years ago? Several states have 0% property taxes on the books for data centers, Utah being one of them. That's a big reason for the Box Elder data center. https://gpuleaseindex.com/incentives/utah
>https://gpuleaseindex.com/incentives/utah
That page has conflicting information. The top text says "Property tax abatement: Limited", which implies tax breaks are limited, but then the bullet point says "Property Tax: Limited", which implies the opposite. Moreover the site doesn't cite any sources so you can't even verify yourself.
Re: New York becomes the first state to impose a data center moratorium
#236Can they build a nuclear power plant or some housing instead?
Re: New York becomes the first state to impose a data center moratorium
#237Thus do the Democrats of America implement the will of the CCP:
https://garryslist.org/posts/the-campaign-to-kill-american-a...
Re: New York becomes the first state to impose a data center moratorium
#238Thus do the Democrats of America implement the will of the CCP: https://garryslist.org/posts/the-campaign-to-kill-american-a...
Christ the font on that site is terrible.
First rule of agitprop - make it readable.
Re: New York becomes the first state to impose a data center moratorium
#239It’s a one year moratorium. I don’t see a problem with this. A lot of voters are concerned about the impacts data centers will have, those concerns are not entirely unwarranted. We don’t actually have to be moving at breakneck speeds, the AI companies just want you to think we do. A pause to investigate seems warranted.
> We don’t actually have to be moving at breakneck speeds
There are a lot of bankrupt companies and fallen nations that believed this. Complacency will hurt you, but only when you realize it too late.
Re: New York becomes the first state to impose a data center moratorium
#240Earlier 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…
> There are no objective concerns to be met Are you sure? Most of the objections I've seen center around environmental impact and effect on residential energy pricing in the surrounding area. Both of these seem to be to be objectively measurable. > the data centers will be built elsewhere in more politically impoverished states What does "politically impoverished" mean? I'd say more "politically permissive" states wo…
I don't love the phrase "politically permissive" because it kind of implies a natural bias of "permissive for corporations" which is usually, then, less permissive for private citizens like you or I.
For example, allowing flock cameras is more "permissive" maybe, but for me, now I have more surveillance to worry about. I am, effectively, "permitted" to do less. So is it permissive really, or just permissive for the "right" party? The party which, lo-and-behold, happens to have more both literal capital than me and political capital?
Politically impoverished is kind of nice, because:
- Red states are "impoverished" politically in that there's very little competition of competing ideas. It's mostly just converged on who's the most christian and most white, and it's become a hivemind. Obviously not all. But I live in Texas. Have you seen political ads in Texas? It's almost 100% just virtue signaling "I'M the most christian!!1"
- Red state fiscal policy often leads to, like, actual poverty. Most red states are very poor, or at least their inhabitants are. There are exceptions, like Texas. But even in Texas: if you drive through Central, South, or West Texas, you will just encounter town after town after town that are borderline abandoned and obviously riddled with abject poverty.