Amazon strategised about keeping its datacentres' full water use secret
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
Yes, we do need the data centers, but people have a saying too.
Unfortunately companies tend to negotiate special deals. And for what? How many local people actually get jobs in a date centre? A few security guards, cleaners and gardeners?
I've seen these things they do everything remote and if that doesn't work they fly in a team.
Think of the airports. Do we need them? Absolutely. Do people have a say? Yes they do. And that's the problem: they will always say sure but not in my backyard. Obviously no one wants an airport nearby, that's understandable. So in the end expanding an airport (and thus economy) becomes basically impossible.
But in case of airport there is at least a clear case to make. DataCenters? Not so much. Laymen are unable to make an educated decisions here hence they will always vote no.
> “A document’s existence doesn’t guarantee its accuracy or finality,” she said. “Meetings often reshape documents or reveal flawed findings or claims.”
Here's a person trained to speak in half truths. Am I the only one to find this revolting? Please tell me I'm not alone.
Unfortunately, most of those people aren't elected.
Because their current water use is much higher?
("Strategy" is a meaningless word here.)
The claims made by the document referred to in the article are potentially harmful to Amazon. If they were untrue and the truth painted Amazon in a better light, they would likely be willing to counter the article with information of their own.
That they instead respond with a total non-answer is a signal that either the document is accurate, or the truth is worse.
Why arent these just closed systems?