201–210 of 346 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, only think about your job that’s gonna go away anyways. Zero global perspective or long-term thinking.
The future is inevitable, says people working tirelessly to make a specific future happen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's absurd to pretend like you can know how a stranger thinks. If I had to predict either way, I would guess that it is significantly AI generated, but that isn't the same thing as being sure. Almost every link submitted to HN has a comment about the content being AI generated, many of which are not, I would rather talk about the "tells" rather than make confident assertions that I can't prove.
For example, https://mydetector.ai/ai-code-detector/ says 90% likely AI. Not that I trust the tools, but there are telltales to me in this function from the site: Object.values(zipBuckets).forEach(function(b) { var latest = b.reports.map(function(r){return r.date;}).sort().reverse()[0]; // ... var popup = ' ' + (noteLines ? ' ' + noteLines + ' ' : '') + // ... } Certain ergonomics are hard to miss since a human who w…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Heat. 9 GW puts off a staggering amount of heat. In an already arid environment. What's the worst that can happen? https://www.sltrib.com/news/environment/2026/05/07/utahs-dat...
> 9 GW puts off a staggering amount of heat. For comparison, that 40,000 acres receives somewhere on the order of 40 GW solar radiation (averaging over night/day and winter/summer). Box Elder County overall receives something like 3600 GW average. There's a lot of power in that sunshine. I remember I was surprised to learn that the heat released from burning all these fossil fuels doesn't really impact the temperatur…
The total head load for consuming electrical energy of 9 GW is thus approximately 3*9 GW = 27 GW = 9 GW at the GPU's and 18 GW at the electricity generation plant.
They mention a gas plant would have to be about 7.5 x 40 acres = 300 acres.
By your calculation its 1 GW / 1000 acres of natural incident solar power; so natural solar power on 300 acres would be just 0.3 GW on the would-be plant.
Instead its dissipating 18 GW (!) 60 x higher!
That is ignoring the 9 GW on the GPU site.
Poor nations desiring developed nation level energy per capita consumption combined with developed nation exploding energy consumption for the AI rat race means humanity ogles consuming energy at such power levels that mere prompt heating approaches similar power levels and densities as GHG radiation forcing did!
In other words, even if we succeeded in phasing out all fossil fuel energy use and replace them with renewables, and even if we somehow extracted all the excess CO2 back out, we will relatively quickly replace the cause of global warming from GHG emissions to prompt heating for generating and dissipating our electric energy use.
2 Exceptions: wind energy and hopefully someday exploiting the temperature difference at ground level versus the tropopause.
Humans have made aerostats (balloons with a tether), humans have made aerostats that went much higher than the tropopause, although only in acceptable weather.
At the tropopause the temperature is about 60 degrees C colder (up to about 100 degrees C in tropical regions).
Imagine a heat loop or huge inflatable levitating heat pipe (using phase transition). The new access at ground level to a cold bath in addition to the environmental warm bath can be used to drive a thermal engine and generate electricity (day and night, winter and summer). It behaves more like baseload energy, and it helps cool the planet: the heat transported from surface level if released at the tropopause level is above about ~70% of the CO2 of the atmosphere, so there it can more quickly escape to the CMB's low temperature bath.
We could be cooling the planet while generating useful electrical energy. The first prototypes should avoid any inhabited areas by a distance at least equal to the structure height (so it doesn't cause damage to population residences). Most humans live "close" to a coast line, so place the first such structures about 15 km into the sea. Another advantage is that the sea water has a high heat capacity, is pumpable, and can provide as a very stable reference thermal hot side bath. I.e. the system shouldn't stall because it has depleted local heat in the environment, you can always pump lukewarm seawater into the device, which can also be used to freeze seawater (desalinating it, see freeze desalination). The frozen seawater can be brought to conventional energy plants to lower their cold side bath temperatures, increasing the efficiency of solar but also gas / fuel / nuclear energy plants.
None of this contradicts the laws of thermodynamics, its an engineering problem: how do we build an inflatable structure that withstands the wind shear forces, dampens structure resonances, identifying the ideal carrier for transporting the heat (a pure substance? a mixture?, ...), a group of specialists should comb through the space of options to get a rough first overview of which directions would be more or less promising than alternatives.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If water is the problem then why are we ignoring how much water beef needs? If we measure per person use it is hundreds times more than data center usage in comparison if we measure in per person consumption
Cows don't steal people's jobs.
The Erin Brockovich page itself repeats the canard, on the front page, that these sites endanger ecosystems with their water consumption.
Why go through the effort when such work has already been done? https://www.datacentermap.com/datacenters/ Not being negative. But isn’t there existing highly reliable data that already exists for this?
I mean, why was OpenStreetMap created?
Why go through the effort when such work has already been done? https://www.datacentermap.com/datacenters/ Not being negative. But isn’t there existing highly reliable data that already exists for this?
EDIT: NO! Wth is this map? I have to click to expand the clusters. Ah well, all is good.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If water is the problem then why are we ignoring how much water beef needs? If we measure per person use it is hundreds times more than data center usage in comparison if we measure in per person consumption
Beef uses water, but you can eat beef. Ai uses water, but you can’t eat ai. Can you see the difference?
> Ai uses water, but you can’t eat ai.
Almost all other foods don't use trillions of gallons of water like beef does. If someone's goal was to reduce water use, then shouldn't they be making at least as much noise about the non-necessary thing using far more water compared to data center's billions, not trillions, of gallons?