61–70 of 94 posts
I hope we can at least avoid the sanewashing. > President Donald Trump has renewed his efforts to take over Greenland, and tapping into the Danish territory’s natural resources is a key part of the strategy. It is not "taking over" or "annexing" . It is invading . A military ally , at that. And it is not "tapping into [...] natural resources" . It is plundering their natural resources . None of these hypotheticals ar…
Today I heard some US official going on about how it's ideal for datacenters. Presumably the B200s will be brought in via dogsled. US has absolutely lost the plot
It probably is pretty good for datacenters. You would save a ton on cooling cost. And CO2 footprint as a result. Not that current US cares about that but the rest of the world does. And you don't have to own a country to put datacenters there. Simply investing there will bring jobs and money for the inhabitants, will make profit for the investor, it's a win win. Forcibly taking it over will make a lot of enemies and…
I think some interviewer with Trump did actually ask him the question you posed and he said something to the effect of "ownership is important" for him _personally_ not necessarily for the _US_ which is the a ridiculous thing to hear from a leader of a country.
I find it funny that they could simply exit the Antarctic treaty and take over Antarctica and gain more value. There's plenty of good stuff under that ice too. It's very likely that it's got his favorite mineral of all: gold.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It probably is pretty good for datacenters. You would save a ton on cooling cost. And CO2 footprint as a result. Not that current US cares about that but the rest of the world does. And you don't have to own a country to put datacenters there. Simply investing there will bring jobs and money for the inhabitants, will make profit for the investor, it's a win win. Forcibly taking it over will make a lot of enemies and…
I don't think the environment being cool is a factor in current data center designs is it? Otherwise, the northern US or Alaska would be candidates. Instead, a lot of the data center boom is in states like Texas or the south. I think some interviewer with Trump did actually ask him the question you posed and he said something to the effect of "ownership is important" for him _personally_ not necessarily for the _US_…
It is increasingly becoming so. And some designs work well. I only read a post about the internet archive's smart use of the server heat a couple days ago, I can't find it back now. And indeed, good point. Alaska would be great for that too.
And the US is kinda an exception, the rest of the world is watching emissions but the US is trying to screw the world up for everyone else. Including themselves but Trump followers seem to view all the disasters as an 'act of god'. I remember those poor school kids in the flooding in texas last year and there being more 'thoughts and prayers' than actual help or prevention.
I know Ireland is popular for datacenters in part because of the climate there (in another big part all the tax breaks but ok).
And yes you can cool them with renewable energy. Most datacenters are. But it also means that renewable energy can't be used for something else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can do both, but why would you? It's not like we've tapped out Australia. And until we have, why bother with Greenland if the same money invested in Australia, or Sweden, or Canada would yield more profit?
You’d do both because up can. Why mine in Australia when you have the US or Canada, etc etc. The idea would mine in all places where it’s marginally profitable until your capital is fully committed.
Greenland is real hard to mine in, needs infrastructure from scratch, and nowhere near enough of a local population.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It probably is pretty good for datacenters. You would save a ton on cooling cost. And CO2 footprint as a result. Not that current US cares about that but the rest of the world does. And you don't have to own a country to put datacenters there. Simply investing there will bring jobs and money for the inhabitants, will make profit for the investor, it's a win win. Forcibly taking it over will make a lot of enemies and…
I don't think the environment being cool is a factor in current data center designs is it? Otherwise, the northern US or Alaska would be candidates. Instead, a lot of the data center boom is in states like Texas or the south. I think some interviewer with Trump did actually ask him the question you posed and he said something to the effect of "ownership is important" for him _personally_ not necessarily for the _US_…
[0]: https://eandt.theiet.org/2022/12/12/iceland-coolest-location...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Europe going forward is going to be treated the way the US treats and has always treated Latin American and African and Middle Eastern countries. That you see a conspiracy in further coercion of a non-consensual empire indicates how sheltered and "white identity" oriented you are.
> Middle Eastern countries. Are we including the way arms are poured into various countries, for dubious reasons? Or are we excluding Israel, Saudi and Turkey?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I threatened someone until they sold me something that they made very clear they did not want to sell noone would call it "Buying" and we shouldn't either. It would be extorting. Under no circumstances are we buying Greenland at this point, anything that happens is something else.
Extortion is the right word here. The problem is that virtually the entire new world and much of the old world was acquired by force and threats of force that has been legitimized over time. So yes, I think this is clearly extortion and any sale that takes would be coerced. But ever was it thus.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that’s harder than just buying/hypnotizing/invading/whatever. If we exit the Antarctic treaty, then so will everyone else and there’s multiple competing claims.
The US is on the verge of becoming a pariah within NATO. The Antarctica treaty ain't nothing compared to that.
Reliance on the US in any way is a liability.
Today I heard some US official going on about how it's ideal for datacenters. Presumably the B200s will be brought in via dogsled. US has absolutely lost the plot
It probably is pretty good for datacenters. You would save a ton on cooling cost. And CO2 footprint as a result. Not that current US cares about that but the rest of the world does. And you don't have to own a country to put datacenters there. Simply investing there will bring jobs and money for the inhabitants, will make profit for the investor, it's a win win. Forcibly taking it over will make a lot of enemies and…
The cooling would be a bonus, but you also can't ignore all the negatives. No power, limited roads, no deep harbour, no skilled support staff, no fiber, no backup fiber, latency, geopolitical uncertainty, thawing permafrost etc
I'd bet the biggest compute in the country is on the US base already...