This land he's building it on is cheap and I look forward to my county using it to advantage everyone. Why do you think you get a say on what happens in my home?
"Why do you think you get a say on what happens in my home?"
also you
* "A lot of people here seem upset about it but when I talk to them I can't get a single good reason to oppose the data center."
* "I really just have to come to the conclusion that we have a tiktok informed voting block here. I've had people ask me if I'm worried that the new data center will spy on me."
First, maybe they don't trust the company doing the development, or Kevin Oleary. What they are saying may or may not be true, but if they've made a habit of being casual with the truth or not following through on their word it doesn't really matter, does it?
That is tough, and it is why it's so important to maintain one's reputation.
Second, I seem to recall Oleary running around to news outlets telling anyone with a camera that the only reason that anyone would oppose the project was if they were somehow working with the PRC and trying to hurt America.
"Why do you think you get a say on what happens in my home?" is a very valid thing you said, and I actually respect it. If, instead, I said something like, "you are just tool of Elon Musk and AI has tricked you" it would probably feel insulting and you would be predisposed be hostile to me.
I think the way the project was done was disrespectful to other people in the area. Ultimately, laws and the voting process will handle it as it should be. If the project can be relied on to bring the benefits without causing the harm that you claim it will, it should be a slam dunk case.
Third, people are concerned about economic security and loss from AI and this specific project can't escape it. Our field has made its own bed there. These concern are valid and public statements by the involved CEOs and large scale layoffs can't be easily dismissed.
Because in Ontario, where his mansion is located, the government hasn't been approving such projects and is facing pressure not to. (https://globalnews.ca/news/12134754/ford-government-to-appro...) Even if the province approved, the lake community surrounding his mansion might not want one, for all the same reasons that the US voters in the source article don't want one.
Yes, ironically they even admit possible reverse causal effect along with many other causal variables. Frankly, this is not exactly stellar research in my view, at least with the rather reckless insinuations not supported.
> Perhaps partly a response to the anxieties engendered by both the Inquisition and the Reformation
I really hate when these kinds of wild and dull speculations are peppered into articles.
In this case it is also rather ironic since the very set of events claimed to have happened were also likely caused by similar wild and ignorant speculation.
It’s really one of the biggest failures on all of our societies that there are not only clear QoS requirements but also clear and strictly enforced consequences, including for politicians and their lies and people having to pay for the things they support.
As much effort that has been put into trying to subjugate and control archive.today, it makes me immediately leery of believing any of this was some kind of deliberate thing on behalf of archive.today.
It’s not to say it’s not so, but people are fools to just chomp down on the bait.
Without clear and irrefutable evidence, which is nearly impossible, the Vault 7 releases should have been more than adequate to quell any doubts that you can believe any kind of claim of foreign campaigns. Why would a V Russian operation link to a fake RT site? A discerning individual world always anime that whatever you are being directed towards is the least likely accurate/correct thing.
It should be $500,000. Is absolutely insane that a society would sell out and betray not just its own people, its own children, but its own whole society and culture by giving away the immense value of their education, the accumulated knowledge of centuries for free, something that is not even morally or ethically theirs to give away for free. It is essentially a criminal theft and malfeasance, treason.
That applies in any country, for any society, any culture. It is effectively your own parents betraying you to advantage, advance, and favor the children of others. It is such a deep betrayal, overt treason! A healthy society would punish this kind of craven betrayal in the most extreme way.
I suspect there is still a good amount of shedding the defensive-hiring going on from the pre-AI, low interest, high growth inflation front-loading era. Now all that is crumbling, interest is rising, growth is contracting due to several factors, and AI is clearly crushing manpower demands. What do you do under these new circumstances with an excess of staff you largely hired as capacity and defensively?
It may be a bit controversial, but I believe the male tectonic shifts going in right now under our feet are also driving much of the shift regarding “immigration” because billionaires don’t need immigrants as much anymore and they’re also causing systemic problems in things like the housing market. In fact from what I’m hearing, there is concern that immigration is now becoming a potential cost due to the major changes in society rather than a profit center by scaling up marginal returns from every immigrant you can import by hook or crook, i.e., the more people you import, the more you can undermine salaries and increase revenues and thus, profits.
> they’re also causing systemic problems in things like the housing market
The rest of your post sounded rational. This part doesn’t.
Failure to build more units (NIMBY) and properties being held as investments (non-US nationals are significant in some markets) are the two causes I would point to. Of course every additional family that needs housing drives up the cost a little, but I really don’t think that can be responsible for the massive increases in housing valuation.
Depends on the market, Australia has a massive issues due to migration for a few reasons; the big one is that the rate of growth attempted means that the rate of public infrastructure build is also high.
This is expensive, and since the migrants are not earning more than the naturals, the GDPpc is not growing to balance the increased cost of infrastructure.
The other big issue is density is expensive; it costs much more to build an apartment at the 10th floor than a detached house. Combine that with density being inherently a bit shit, you get less quality and less housing for the money spent.
The whole thing is rational, regardless of whether you realize it.
There are several issues with your position. Of course there are other factors, but it is inherently disingenuous and dishonest to ignore the fact that just alone since the year 2000 at least 45 million foreigners and their children are in the USA that would not have been here just based on natural population growth. So it's up to you if you can rationalize hard enough to ty to make an argument that adding 45 million additional people to the population would not have had some measurable impact on the "massive increase in housing valuations".
Genuinely, were you at all aware of just how many foreign people had come to the USA and then had children?
reply