> isn't against them being built but thinks that there need to be rules in place so the communities that they're being built in actually benefit from them
More "Not in any backyard until deal structures are guaranteed to respect the gross asymmetry of participants, but at that point reasonable so let's establish those structure guarantees with federal leverage sooner than later"
In other words, welcome to NIABUDSAGTTYGAOP, BATPESLETSGWFLSTL
But I get how that's not as fun to engage with for pithy internet rhetoric.
“Nono, I’m not NIMBY, I just want to set up some goalposts that I can arbitrarily move whenever I want. I just want veto power. Trust me, I’ll use it responsibly”
Actually the datacenter boom is already making it so only the rich have access, and the rest of us can maybe rent a little. Prices out a new box lately?
Yes this is exactly what NIMBYs who want to prevent new housing from existing say. And preventing people in a community from having a day in what gets built in their neighborhoods is precislely what state level YIMBY laws in California are intended to do.
If you cannot see the fundamental difference between building datacenters that suck power, provide no local jobs, are a nuisance, and can be located almost anywhere and housing for people I simply don’t know what to tell you.
Your point is that the arguments are topologically similar but you are ignoring the impacts.
The impacts of data centers on people living nearby are basically nothing, and pretty much all anti-data-center-sentiment is driven by misinformed or willfully-delusional people. Even the idea that it's a problem that data centers "provide no local jobs" is crazy - there are all sorts of built structures that provide no local jobs because they simply have nothing to do with a business that hires employees, the idea that a data center doing much the same thing justifies making it illegal to build is crazy.
I think there's a better case that building additional housing causes an impact on people nearby than there is that data centers do - because the people who would live in that housing are a type of impact on the people who already live nearby - and I'm still extremely unsympathetic to NIMBYs because NIMBYism is the main reason my own housing costs are so high. Data center opposition is even less justified than housing opposition.
If data centres were forced to contribute what was required to build the utility infrastructure required to support them, that might be true. For example, electricity costs.
Datacentres are generally built where poor people live. If you are on minimum wage and suddenly someone increases your electricity bill by $300 because of data centres, on top of all the other increases tied to things like energy insecurity... I can understand why people would consider that an impact.
Why should by default anyone have a say in what legal activity someone does in their own private property? If they don't like it, it is on them to prove some damages.
>Why should by default anyone have a say in what legal activity someone does in their own private property? If they don't like it, it is on them to prove some damages.
I can legally operate a slaughterhouse. How about I buy the plots on both sides of your house and start killing, gutting and cleaning cows, pigs, sheep and other animals?
Any waste can be removed a couple times a week.
I'd expect that you'd object to that perfectly reasonable business plan, yes?
What's that? There are laws (usually zoning) about who (If anyone) can run a slaughterhouse on your street?
Whatever do you mean?
Who are you to tell me what I can do on my private property?
If the data center which requires the grid improvements is fully paying for the upgrades, I'm OK with it. OTOH, if they expect to fob off the cost of the otherwise-optional upgrade on the rest of the ratepayers, Fck-NO!
And for those who say "but it benefits the rest of the ratepayers, so they should pay too", NO! If you (person or corp) come in and demand we change something, you should be a net benefit for everyone, not just yourself.
Be a good citizen and help everyone, and you'll find support. Don't, and find people see you as an asshat and you'll find opposition.
What's your long position? You can't pick winners or losers in a bubble. All the leading AI companies are valuing themselves as if they each own the entire TAM without any clear moat. It's obviously not going to work out.
That's not that how that works btw. The incompleteness is a property of the algorithm which does the proofs, not the theorems. If a theorem is true it has a proof and a program which proves it (printf("the proof verbatim")). But no computer program can successfully prove all theorems. The space of potential proofs is too big to search systematically, but you can still get lucky.
That is also not how it works. The theorem says that there exist some true statements for which there is no proof. This is assuming the axioms are consistent.
Can something be both true and unprovable without being a self-referential Godel sentence? I assume most statements that aren't self-referential are independent, like the continuum hypothesis with ZFC.
If this tech was being used for traffic enforcement then I'm all for it. Unfortunately it seems like people will still be able to browse their phone behind the wheel and run over kids on bikes despite the surveillance
The issue with privacy violations isn't how it is being used today, its how it may be used later and the precedent it sets for future invasions of privacy.
The world has collectively agreed to let the kids die. Old are eating the kid's earnings and putting them in more debt than any generation ever. Then there is the world itself is boiling and we are the frogs
If you don't make a change and then there's a plane crash that's not your problem.
reply