341–350 of 421 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
The guidelines ask that curious conversation be pursued, drilling into straw guesses about fellow commenters motivations be eschewed. Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. ~ https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The guidelines ask that curious conversation be pursued, drilling into straw guesses about fellow commenters motivations be eschewed. Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. ~ https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Pointing out that it's normal for hotels to be built in touristy areas is not snarky.
Do you know this person or are you just making up a narrative and writing a stranger into it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It’s really hard to explain that centers aren’t bad and are actually far more efficient than the alternatives. This isn't about efficiency, power, water, or fire. AT ALL. Massive amounts of people have their jobs and livelihood threatened. The datacenters, which are enabling that, are being deployed in their neighborhoods while everyone in that neighborhood goes jobless. There is no plan of relief in the form of be…
“Everyone in that neighborhood goes jobless”? The US unemployment rate is currently 4.3%.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No just a bored dude who loves tech and being creative - sharing a thought that seems unique to spur conversation.
I thought it was funny.
Yet what about all other humans where's is their system and will those stock options provide enough pay to keep this economic system we have going? If not then my concept of using AI against itself so all humans get their fair share for feeding AI content could be an option.
Either way AI needs to pay us it's fair share as without humanity past content it wouldnt exist and without it's future content it's irrelevant.
What the comments fail to point out (and I haven't read the article to find out if they address it): the number of data centers being built is based on speculation of need and is a dramatic over-estimate. It has to be. What, other than AI has happened in the last few years that would warrant that many new data centers? How do they know there will be customers for that capacity? There will not be advances in algorithm…
I know I’ll get downvoted into oblivion but I can’t help but think data center and ai backlash manufactured or is a psi-ops campaign by Russia or China It doesn’t make any sense to me as the externalities are future not current and at no other point in time has the public cared about the future without first seeing concrete examples of harm. That hasn’t happened yet for data centers nor AI. It’s all “if, maybe, somet…
This is a wild claim because it's trivially provable. There's been tons of reporting around the effect they have on the immediate vicinity, and that's without even getting into the unknown long-term effects.
Here's a decent piece, but there's plenty more out there if you look at all: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-8TDOFqkQA
Is every single mad person doing investigative reporting and / or living next to a data center? No. But something doesn't have to personally affect me to know it's harmful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most people I know (in Utah) are predominantly concerned with the pollution and water use. Water is the most ubiquitous concern across politics in Utah. No matter what political ideology you adhere to, water rights and water conservation are a core topic. If you watch local news for more than an hour or two, you will see propaganda to "slow the flow". One of the most common criticisms of our Governor is that he publi…
Why is water so inexpensive? Shouldn’t the price per gallon increase exponentially? It seems like it shouldn’t be that difficult to come up with curves so that typical households pay very little for water and the big users pay a lot for water.
The solution is not to price water as a commodity, either. If we priced water high enough to disincentivize waste, we would create an incredible burden for regular people. Water should be as cheap as possible, and at the same time regulated to guarantee an amount of conservation. People who can afford to more than double a state's power grid capacity, all for a single data center, can afford more water than the populace can afford.
What we need is to regulate water use generally so that the watersheds and ecosystems we rely on can be reasonably conserved.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So? Since when is there a floor for the number of jobs a business has to create? Suzies Tanning Salon uses a lot of energy but only employs 3 people.
Presumably Suzie also serves the people in her community who want tanned skin but don't like the sun. A data center offers nothing of value to the community it's embedded in - neither jobs nor any useful product or service. All the benefits accrue to the owners, and the very real costs are paid by the people breathing in the fumes from the gas turbines, or paying an extra hundred bucks a month for power. If you don't…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand why people think they should be able to vote on things like this. Especially when they lack the necessary credentials to have an informed opinion on it.
So what are the topics people should be able to vote on? I don't think people have the necessary credentials to vote on immigration, drug price regulation, social media regulation? Why let people vote at all, they don't know anything apparently.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand why people think they should be able to vote on things like this. Especially when they lack the necessary credentials to have an informed opinion on it.
I mean, why do we let people without property vote in the first place? It's really only people with a vested interest who have something at stake.