Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wisconsin communities signed secrecy deals for billion-dollar data centers

wpr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 383 posts

Re: Wisconsin communities signed secrecy deals for billion-dollar data centers

#251

Post by state_less »

jeffbee wrote: post #200
state_less wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously data center bidders would prefer their activity to be kept in the dark, but does that make for good outcomes for anyone else except the bidders. First, the community would like to weigh in on whether they want a data center or not, often they don't. Then if they do, they'd rather have a bidding war than some NDA backroom deal with a single entity. All this does is serve Big Tech and Big Capital, and they do…

> the community would like to weigh in on whether they want a data center This is the enabler of pure NIMBYism and we have to stop thinking this way. If a place wants this kind of land use and not that kind, then they need to write that down in a statute so everyone knows the rules. Making it all discretionary based on vibes is why Americans can't build anything.

I thought I made it clear, I'm not against data center build outs per se, a community might decide it's worth it to build one. If a community decides to go ahead with it, make it clear and open for the public to bid on it so the residents get the best deal available (e.g. reduced power bills, reduced property taxes, water usage limits, noise/light polution limits, whathaveyou...). These massive data centers are a new kind of business that most communities don't have much experience with, and I doubt they've had time to codify the rules. It sounds like the states are starting to add some more rules about transparency, which seems like a step in the right direction for making better deals for all involved.

Re: Wisconsin communities signed secrecy deals for billion-dollar data centers

#252

Post by [deleted] »

simianwords wrote: post #65
sailfast wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn’t overthink the SpaceX / xAI thing. Seems to me it’s a pure financing play to blend two companies owned by the same guy that might look meh on their own to the market but have a compelling narrative about “future growth” together. All so that the same guy who is already quite rich can continue to run his funny-up money roll-up machine, re-capitalize on a bunch of froth and leave other people holding the bag.

what about Google? It's always the same tired thought ending cliches - companies with "bad" people do obviously "bad" thing to convince idiotic shareholders and prop up the bubble. i keep seeing this same repeated trope again and again. Edit: Elon, Sundar, Jensen, Jeff are all interested in this. Even China is. What conspiracy is going on here to explain it? Why would they all put money into this if it is so obvious…

[deleted]

Re: Wisconsin communities signed secrecy deals for billion-dollar data centers

#253

Post by lotsofpulp »

horsawlarway wrote: post #199
eigencoder wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me give you an anecdote that illustrates why it was needed in Eagle Mountain, Utah. One of my friends works for the city there and he told me about how the development went down. When the city council first heard that Facebook wanted to build a data center, they shot it down solely because of Facebook's reputation. A year or two later, Facebook proposed the exact same project to the city council, while keeping th…

I'm not sure how I feel about this. I think "reputation" is absolutely critical to functional societies, and this feels a lot like putting a mask on and hiding critical information. If Facebook got rejected because people hate Facebook, even when the economics are good... that's valuable to society as a feedback mechanism to force Facebook to be, well - not so hated. Letting them put a legal mask on and continue busi…

> I think "reputation" is absolutely critical to functional societies,

See the popular vote results of Nov 2024 US presidential election. Reputations were on full display.

Re: Wisconsin communities signed secrecy deals for billion-dollar data centers

#254

Post by emsign »

triceratops wrote: post #170
Throaway1982 wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it? It's my understanding that cooling an AI data centre takes massive amounts of water. Agriculture may be worse but no one is saying they want that either.

Agriculture ships water away in the form of crops. It loses water from evaporation. I think data centers use closed-loop cooling. They use water but they don't lose it.

A few, most don't. If it's cheaper to use an open system then the closed system are only built for show, to soothe the public.

Re: Wisconsin communities signed secrecy deals for billion-dollar data centers

#255

Post by mceachen »

PTOB wrote: post #239

Things like this have had me scratching my head for decades. Why would local governments annex property, upgrade utilities, and build new roads without moving that burden to the entities driving those things? They routinely do this for new residential developments in many jurisdictions, refusing to annex subdivisions until the residents have paid for the utilities and roads. There seems to be no reason that the curre…

Gobsmackingly poor deals made by city and town politicians are par for the course, and why https://www.strongtowns.org/ should be prerequisite reading for any council member, mayor, or board member approving deals that impact their community.

It's easy to look at a glossy project 2-pager and only see the immediate tax revenue.

It's much harder to glean a nuanced understanding of future financial burdens from a given project. No company will have any incentive to be forthright with that information.

Re: Wisconsin communities signed secrecy deals for billion-dollar data centers

#256

Post by emsign »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #86
emsign wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Data centers raise electricity bills and use too much ground water. Due to the AI bubble more data centers need to be built in areas that cannot support these facilities, deregulation, investor and political pressure ensures this, i.e. corruption. The last remaining spots are near residential areas. So people are pissed because of: * noise pollution, infrasound from HVAC travelling long distances making people sick *…

> use too much ground water Data centers use little water. Less than using the same land for anything involving agriculture, for example. The idea that a data center uses too much water is recently invented propaganda that is readily verifiable as fiction. Cui bono?

I'd rather have something to eat or take a shower at home than talk to an LLM.

Re: Wisconsin communities signed secrecy deals for billion-dollar data centers

#257

Post by emsign »

zoeysmithe wrote: post #93
jandrewrogers wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> use too much ground water Data centers use little water. Less than using the same land for anything involving agriculture, for example. The idea that a data center uses too much water is recently invented propaganda that is readily verifiable as fiction. Cui bono?

Comparing it to agriculture which has a very large demand for water by its nature is very apples to oranges. We need food, its questionable if we need grok taking people's clothes off. These data centers do come at a real environmental cost. I don't think cherry picking water usage is really helpful here.

[flagged]

Re: Wisconsin communities signed secrecy deals for billion-dollar data centers

#258

Post by convolvatron »

GorbachevyChase wrote: post #105
dguest wrote: post #39

I'd like to hear the argument for why this is needed. I can imagine a number of reasons, but this is all I found in the article: > If I’m a company considering making strategic investments... I don’t want my competition to know where I’m going, what I’m doing, what pace I’m doing it at... You want to make sure everything is buttoned up and bow tied before that type of information is put into the public realm. I'm hav…

The elected representation agreed to this, and a with a bit of imagination, you can list a few reasons for exercising an NDA before a vote: - Avoid the large and well-funded network of professional activists in the US from sabotaging the property and injuring locals - Avoid local political actors from spreading fear and misinformation just for the sake of grandstanding. - Avoid activist attorneys and judges from acro…

I wish I didn't feel so compelled to wade into this comment. After reading it several times I just can't make sense of it. Surely its the tech-rich psychopaths and hedge fund managers (I dont think of them as being particularly progressive) that are asking city councils to sign NDAs and are funding these data centers in the first place? it really seems like you're blaming them for stirring up antipathy for the project?

Re: Wisconsin communities signed secrecy deals for billion-dollar data centers

#259

Post by bell-cot »

buellerbueller wrote: post #242
bell-cot wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Smallville is entitled to a no-exceptions policy. OTOH, if Smallville seems too unfriendly to developers, the latter may decide to build outside the city limits. Which might become a problem over time, by holding down Smallville's commercial tax base. Forcing the voting citizen to make unhappy choices between high taxes on their own homes, and Smallville having too little money to afford nice things that they want.

If McD builds outside of Smallville, they don't get any of the services that Smallville taxes subsidize. Smallville taxes serve Smallvillians, not corporate villains.

True. But McD may decide that the services in developer-friendly Small Township are just as good, for their use case. And Smallville residents may be content to drive another 500 yards down Smallville-Littleton Rd., to spend their money at the new McD out in Smallville Twp.

In public policy, everything is a tradeoff.

Re: Wisconsin communities signed secrecy deals for billion-dollar data centers

#260

Post by [deleted] »

horsawlarway wrote: post #199
eigencoder wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me give you an anecdote that illustrates why it was needed in Eagle Mountain, Utah. One of my friends works for the city there and he told me about how the development went down. When the city council first heard that Facebook wanted to build a data center, they shot it down solely because of Facebook's reputation. A year or two later, Facebook proposed the exact same project to the city council, while keeping th…

I'm not sure how I feel about this. I think "reputation" is absolutely critical to functional societies, and this feels a lot like putting a mask on and hiding critical information. If Facebook got rejected because people hate Facebook, even when the economics are good... that's valuable to society as a feedback mechanism to force Facebook to be, well - not so hated. Letting them put a legal mask on and continue busi…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN