Right? Absolutely flabbergasting hearing this _while trump is in office, after 2 years of controlling all three branches_. I remember hearing this as a justification for looking past trumps obvious faults and deficiencies. To hear it said now seems almost satirical.
People are complaining because they are building data centers near people, and data centers produce prodigious amounts of noise pollution. They should be building them far away from civilization, where the low frequency noise has plenty of distance to attenuate.
People are complaining because of propaganda online. My middle school age children think data centers are evil and we don't have any around us nor have they ever seen one.
The problem is data centers produce absolutely colossal amounts of noise that can be heard and felt for miles. Even if water is a non-issue, the noise isn’t.
Neither is a problem in the sense that both noise and water consumption can be mitigated with some minor (relative to the total cost of a project) capital investments. If these were rational objections, states and municipalities could simply issue noise codes and water access caps, then let the companies figure out how to work within the lines. Instead, we’re left with blanket bans
No, it’s not the noise it’s the power consumption. Your locale becomes a power consumption hog so your off-peak hours and your peak hours become very similarly priced. Noise can be dampened, the power bill cannot.
This is actually a meme/fake videos on the internet, where they add random noise over their videos while recording a datacenter to make it seem really loud.
Realistically you can only hear it if you're within 30-50 feet of the data center, unless there's a separate diesel/natural gas generator.
Fairness isn’t the relevant lens. Copyright isn’t the right lens either. This is purely might-makes-right, where the winner is whoever has the best offence and best defence.
It is only hypocritical when they bitch about things being unfair, or try to use copyright arguments in the court system.
Copyrighted works plainly have value for Anthropic. Why aren't they paying for that value?
As a vigorous, thrusting company surely Anthropic has the wherewithal to pay for it. And if they don't, if all they can do is steal, if all they represent is the theft of the labor of others, then what good are they?
I'm describing reality as it is, not how I wish the world to be. Copyright is a legal construct that makes intellectual works ownable. But those works aren't merely property; they're also culture. And borrowing from, building upon and transforming existing works has been fundamental to human creativity since the very beginnings of human creativity.
I support copyright in a narrow sense, but I think it's proving to be increasingly archaic, conceived for a 19th-century world of mechanical printing presses and far too absolutist for the 21st-century world of memes, sampling, and LLMs.
Well their justification is that distillation is bad because it means baddies can get their own models without their safeguards and then make anthrax nukes or whatever. Even though it's self serving, it's at least self-consistent.
I’m getting unsolicited texts all the time about how the “billionaire tax” in California is the worst thing ever. No matter if you think the tax is misguided, it’ll probably work at preventing the billionaire tax from passing, but it’s a good firsthand demonstration at how power accumulating to billionaires tends to accumulate even further. Only billionaires have the resources to fight back so aggressively against any encroachment on their power.
That gets into an idea I've been pretty adamant about. People say that capitalism is the worst system except for all the others, but its actual property is that it's inevitable. Money (power) can be used to gain more power. If even a few people choose to do so, if not countered intentionally by some outside force, wealth and power will accumulate.
Whether you see that as good or bad or something which needs to be checked and controlled is a separate discussion, but it's an obvious and expected result.
Look at Trump and even Vance “joking” about Canada being a state. They wouldn’t hesitate to take Canada by force if America ever got to the point where fleeing to Canada was forcibly prevented.
Exactly. How did the roadster stick to the curved ramp with no obvious jets firing before going airborne? It wasn't going fast enough for centrifugal force to keep it from falling so how did that part of the magic show work?
Suction as I understand it, it had a ground curtain and the blurb talked about the ability to create downforce to keep the roadster version on the road at high speeds.
The same fans that blew downwards to create lift were likely first run to suck it in to the ramp, then reversed.
These demos were not performed by "daily driver" cars - they were multiple look alike props in a magic show, each optimised for the trick shot and not driver comfort or experience (if any driver(s) even took part).
> The same fans that blew downwards to create lift were likely first run to suck it in to the ramp, then reversed.
That's a nice theory, but it is wrong.
The fans that are used to create suction do not create lift. The amount of air moved by those fans is way too small to create lift, the lift is entirely due to compressed air used as reaction mass.
Fair point, I was thinking the same when I wrote the comment .. I still side with the reverse hovercraft sucking force .. and thinking they likely reversed those fans after the need for suction passed (every little bit counts).
I guess nobody clicks on the links anymore? From the OP:
"Our multi-mode fan and ground sealing system acts as a downforce generator, pulling air out from beneath the vehicle. This provides enough suction to hold the vehicle upside down, even when stationary. Powered fans and active wings maximize traction and cornering speeds in all conditions, achieving massive downforce at zero speed. A next-gen steer-by-wire system offers incredible feedback in various road conditions. Activate Track Mode to lower the car and transform the suspension. High downforce or low drag modes can then be used as needed on the track."
Very cool. Too bad the demo was achieved with wires and special effects.
Edit: citation? Common sense. If it was real they'd have done everything they could to prove it. It's as real as Tesla's self driving taxis were a decade ago. How many more times will people get duped by this conman?
I want a citation this was real before I believe literal smoke and mirrors at night.
Didn't F1 cars briefly have downforce fans (basically suction fans underneath the car) until it was ruled out of spec? Basically a "reverse hovercraft" trick, normally used for handling, but "turned up to 11" here.
There was the Brabham BT46 that got quickly banned.
On the front of cars you can actually buy and drive there is the McMurty Spierling an electric single seater with a fan generating more downforce then it weighs (can go upside down)
Yeah it now holds a bunch of lap records on tracks without very long straights (where it looses due to not that high top speed). It also took the Goodwood hillclimb in 2022 and held it for a couple years.
reply