U.S. gov't moves to suppress pushback on data centers

Post by voidmain » Wed, Aug 26, 2026, 5:12 PM UTC

Zambyte wrote: post #124

GPerson wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don’t get to 25 or 30 trillion total addressable market by providing AI for the people who like AI. The whole plan is to replace all white collar work with AI. This requires more data centers. The people who benefit the most from this will see the least of the negative effects.

You don’t get to 25 or 30 trillion total addressable market, full stop. It's just a straight up pipe dream. If everyones jobs are automated away, there won't be any customers for the products and services provided by the companies that are fully automated by AI.

Post by goatlover » Wed, Aug 26, 2026, 5:46 PM UTC

duskdozer wrote: post #80

docdeek wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FTA: 'The largest estimate for any single facility ever.' From the researcher: 'We estimated between $53 million and $99 million in annual health damages from associated air pollution — among the largest health-damage estimates produced for a single facility to date.' [0] Still enormous, but there is a significant difference between being 'THE X of all time, and being 'among the X of all time'. Regarding 'minor sourc…

Some of these residents will die, but that's a price I'm willing to pay. How many deaths would go from minor to major? How much impact to quality of life that isn't death would there be? There is already very little to make these projects pay the externality costs; at this point paying enough remediation costs to reduce additional deaths should be the minimum.

Post by goatlover » Wed, Aug 26, 2026, 5:51 PM UTC

Gormo wrote: post #117

defrost wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think it's reasonable to regard concerns about emissions from banks of continuously running jet engines as "opposition to data centers" Clearly you don't. For others, it's opposition to power hungry, polluting, noisy, developments that are concentrating digital power in the hands of a few, raising local heat levels (if topology domes heat), consuming memory and GPU resources to the detriment of the commons.

> Clearly you don't. Obviously, since I'm the one discussing it here. The broader question is whether the people who are conflating them together are doing so out of honest confusion or out of ulterior motives. > For others, it's opposition to power hungry, polluting, noisy, developments that are concentrating digital power in the hands of a few, raising local heat levels (if topology domes heat), consuming memory an…

Post by consensus1 » Wed, Aug 26, 2026, 6:03 PM UTC

preg_match wrote: post #128

consensus1 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People complain when you hook them up to the high efficiency generators that power the grid, so this is what they get.

It's very simple: just take some of the existing capital and invest it towards the grid, then build the datacenter. The problem with the grid isn't electricity stealing. It's that the grid literally cannot support the amount of datacenters being built. It's not a matter of opinion, just numbers. So why won't AI companies do just that, invest in the grid? Well they want the datacenters now , not 10 years from now. I t…

Post by NekkoDroid » Wed, Aug 26, 2026, 7:02 PM UTC

goatlover wrote: post #133

duskdozer wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some of these residents will die, but that's a price I'm willing to pay. How many deaths would go from minor to major? How much impact to quality of life that isn't death would there be? There is already very little to make these projects pay the externality costs; at this point paying enough remediation costs to reduce additional deaths should be the minimum.

It's a price you are willing top pay for other people? What price are they willing to pay? It's not your price to pay. It's their lives.