Live data from Hacker News

'We used acid to sabotage Microsoft hyperscale data centre construction'

techwerkers.nl

151–160 of 194 posts

Re: 'We used acid to sabotage Microsoft hyperscale data centre construction'

#151
post #133

> There’s an acute water shortage in The Netherlands right now. When I open BlueSky, everyone is talking about water being increasingly wasted on cooling data centres. And for what? To generate more AI shit. Ah, the water-use BS again. In Europe, other than in the US, water use for data centers is strictly regulated. You cannot just do open-loop cooling and use a tap-water -> chiller -> sewer line. Things have to be…

I have a friend (engineer) working on a data center in Texas. It is closed loop. What’s interesting is the chillers have so much condensation that they pump it out to sprinklers which water the desert which now has grass growing. So at least water doesn’t seem to be as big of an objection now. Power though? Still a problem.

> Power though? Still a problem.

I've long suspected that monied interests are seeding social media with weak arguments about water as a distraction, and people mindlessly re-share that as part of their identity. Then the other half can come along and "correct" them while the main issue of power is forgotten. Social media gets engagement, and capital gets its data centers.

It's the same tired pattern we've seen for a long time now in politics, and they keep rolling it out because it works.

Re: 'We used acid to sabotage Microsoft hyperscale data centre construction'

#152
post #7

Right, all they're going to do is rip the concrete out and repour it, causing even more damage to the environment (concrete production and curing is unbelievably C02 intensive) I don't disagree we shouldn't be expanding power consumption unless we've moved the vast majority (>90%) of the load off fossil fuels, but this certainly didn't help anything.

I think there is a good chance that they didn't throw enough balloons to warrant replacing it. I wonder if they bothered to get high concentration vinegar.

"high concentration vinegar"? You mean acetic acid? You'd have to be nuts to carry balloons of concentrated acetic acid.

This is a nonsensical, stupid and fruitless symbolic act. Why should someone be crippled, blinded or killed by their foolishness?

Re: 'We used acid to sabotage Microsoft hyperscale data centre construction'

#153
post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well the industrial should charge more to cover its costs instead of offloading the cost of its goods to consumers? Why does Walmart get to utilize food stamps or hyperscalers get to drain all the energy? Thats a massive public subsidy for a private corporation.

In the end the consumer pays. Why should the consumer pay tax on the fossil fuels used to bring them AI but not on the fossil fuels used to bring them to work? That's the inconsistency.

Is gas not taxed or am I missing something?

Re: 'We used acid to sabotage Microsoft hyperscale data centre construction'

#154
post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a friend (engineer) working on a data center in Texas. It is closed loop. What’s interesting is the chillers have so much condensation that they pump it out to sprinklers which water the desert which now has grass growing. So at least water doesn’t seem to be as big of an objection now. Power though? Still a problem.

> Power though? Still a problem. I've long suspected that monied interests are seeding social media with weak arguments about water as a distraction, and people mindlessly re-share that as part of their identity. Then the other half can come along and "correct" them while the main issue of power is forgotten. Social media gets engagement, and capital gets its data centers. It's the same tired pattern we've seen for a…

It doesn't even have to be monied interests. Media as a whole is getting severely disrupted by AI and they (somewhat understandably) see the technology as being built on top of their content without recompense. As such they will latch on to any topic -- supported or otherwise -- that lets them push a negative narrative.

On the flip side a lot of people's jobs are likely being threatened by the technology, so there is sizeable receptive audience already.

They don't need any more incentive or backing from monied interests, really. However I'm also pretty sure a lot of players are engaging in submarine warfare as well (https://paulgraham.com/submarine.html).

Re: 'We used acid to sabotage Microsoft hyperscale data centre construction'

#155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of people sabotaged the Nazis. You think they need to be dealt with on the harshest terms.

It would have been in the interests of the Nazis to do so!

> It would have been in the interests of the Nazis to do so!

Then you should probably ask yourself why your recommended course of action is in the interests of the Nazis?

Re: 'We used acid to sabotage Microsoft hyperscale data centre construction'

#156
post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Power though? Still a problem. I've long suspected that monied interests are seeding social media with weak arguments about water as a distraction, and people mindlessly re-share that as part of their identity. Then the other half can come along and "correct" them while the main issue of power is forgotten. Social media gets engagement, and capital gets its data centers. It's the same tired pattern we've seen for a…

It doesn't even have to be monied interests. Media as a whole is getting severely disrupted by AI and they (somewhat understandably) see the technology as being built on top of their content without recompense. As such they will latch on to any topic -- supported or otherwise -- that lets them push a negative narrative. On the flip side a lot of people's jobs are likely being threatened by the technology, so there is…

> They don't need any more incentive or backing from monied interests

Because they are the monied interests.

What they don't want is for the conversation to turn from people blindly rejecting data centers (for any reason) to people saying wait a minute, let's embrace technology/AI but let users benefit from every aspect instead of being capital's bitch every second the day.

Re: 'We used acid to sabotage Microsoft hyperscale data centre construction'

#157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would have been in the interests of the Nazis to do so!

> It would have been in the interests of the Nazis to do so! Then you should probably ask yourself why your recommended course of action is in the interests of the Nazis?

"You know who else reacted to foreign backed industrial sabotage campaigns? Hitler"

this is deep stuff dude. you should run for office

Re: 'We used acid to sabotage Microsoft hyperscale data centre construction'

#158

> There’s an acute water shortage in The Netherlands right now. When I open BlueSky, everyone is talking about water being increasingly wasted on cooling data centres. And for what? To generate more AI shit. Ah, the water-use BS again. In Europe, other than in the US, water use for data centers is strictly regulated. You cannot just do open-loop cooling and use a tap-water -> chiller -> sewer line. Things have to be…

It’s regulated in the US too. You need well and consumption permits before using tons of water. Water usage is approved

Just like xAI was regulated to not run more than 15 gas turbines? US lets companies get away with breaking things and punishes wrongdoing at most with a fine that's less than the money that was made by breaking the rules, so US regulations sort of don't matter.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jan/15/elon-musk...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus_(data_center)

Re: 'We used acid to sabotage Microsoft hyperscale data centre construction'

#159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> now have to add security so it doesn't happen a second time You assume that that cost is going to be borne by the corporation building the facility and not by the general public through lobbying to protect construction sites from mischief (mischief in the legal sense, which in many countries is an indictable offence). In most democracies, private security generally has to defer to the police for anything that invol…

The rate of somebody actually being caught and handled by police is negligible. The private security still have to watch 24/7 and that's a private cost.

I mean, they're talking to newspapers using their real names. And they're admitting what they've done.

If this was actually about real sabotage and causing real damage, the move would be to do something similar to what they're doing (incur structural damage) but keep quiet about it. Let them continue building out the DC and then watch the floor collapse when it gets loaded with server racks. Chipping out some concrete that's been clearly marked:

> mixture of hydrogen peroxide, acetic acid, salt, and acrylic paint

Is a very minor inconvenience in a construction project of that scale compared to having the building collapse when it's partially filled with servers.

I'm not sure what the actual size of the on-site construction crew is, but one that's going up locally here is budgeted at $1.7B for the initial build-out and up to $12B for the total investment including all of the hardware that'll run inside it. A bunch of cameras, potentially perimeter radars, and a few security guards are really really minor additional costs. The facility they're building here is supposed to be 500,000 sq.ft. The cost of all of the additional security for managing this problem is probably less than a single rack of servers.

Re: 'We used acid to sabotage Microsoft hyperscale data centre construction'

#160
The environmental impact discussion is always incomplete because it only looks at AI in isolation. LLMs do exactly nothing by themselves, they are always used to facilitate some human endeavor, so we need to take a holistic view of the system.

I had previously done some napkin math (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46984659) which found LLMs + humans are way more efficient than humans alone, but that analysis is by definition simplistic, and as some point out, does not account for outliers like coding. Fortunately, I just came across this source: https://gist.github.com/mdodkins/9b49624855cc41570c9d1012e0d...

That looks accurate and lines up with my previous numbers. A heavy day of Claude Code usage is equivalent to running 0.7 of a dishwasher cycle. Already that sounds pretty decent, but let's put that into context and refine the simplistic analysis a bit. Discussing footprints in terms of [electricity / water / CO2] tuples, that is approximately:

1.3 kWH / 2.6L / 540g

Compare that to a human's daily footprint (US averages, scaled down to an 8-hour workday; the numbers are actually higher if you look only at office use):

10 kWH / 102L / 4KG

As a % of the human footprint, that is ~ 13% / 2% / 13%.

Right off the bat water usage is negligible. But at a minimum if LLM usage saves a human 13% time at a task, we're at breakeven i.e. the LLM resource consumption is compensated by the savings in human consumption. Anything more than 13% and we actually start conserving resources on average!

Now I know the productivity impact of LLMs is a contentious topic, but my past comments include studies (from 2024, in the era of spicy autocomplete, long before coding agents!) showing ~30% boost in throughput and/or time savings. Interestingly the survey-based https://www.genaiadoptiontracker.com/ finds a consistent 30% time savings across industries. A human completing a task 30% faster consumes ~30% less resources i.e. we save ~3.3 kWH / 34L / 1.3KG per day.

This gives us a net savings of 2 kWH / 31L / 760g per human per day!

Even with 2024 estimates of productivity numbers we are conserving resources! I would wager that a full day's use of Claude Code today offers a much, much higher boost.

You could say coding is a small part of software engineering, but then resource consumption scales down correspondingly. The upshot remains that for a given task overall resource consumption goes down with increased LLM usage! In fact, if LLMs were adopted across all knowledge workers to do all possible tasks, we could recoup the enormous environmental cost of training models in a few business days! Subsequent ongoing savings can more than compensate for a lot of the slop produced elsewhere.

So -- and tongue only partly in cheek -- if you really want to make an environmental impact, use LLMs more.

Post reply on HN