Hacker News Reader

Comment by loudmax | Hacker News Reader

Agriculture uses orders of magnitudes more water than data centers. A 50% cut in water use by data centers will have nowhere near the impact of a 5% cut in water use by agriculture. But data centers can generate orders of magnitude more revenue.

Say rain water is leaking into your house from two holes in the roof: one is 1 meter in diameter, the other is 1cm. Any effort you spend plugging the 1cm hole is a distraction from the 1m hole you really need to focus on.

You could make an argument that agriculture is different because we need agricultural products to live. But we don't need those specific products to live (alfalfa, almonds, etc), and they could be grown far more efficiently if water were priced by market rates.

View on HN

That 1cm leak is going to lead to mold in my house so both need to be addressed.

Maybe imagine your in a canoe with a hole the size of your fist and another hole the size of a pin. Where do you spend your time to keep from sinking?

You have to understand that this isn't really about leaks. It's a holy war against pinholes, so empiricism or pragmatism isn't remotely relevant.

Yes, but we have a whole cohort of people hopping around and screeching about the 1cm hole while basically no one cares about the 1m hole. Distraction.

> data centers can generate orders of magnitude more revenue

You can't eat data.

Yes, just like you can't eat trucks, roads, grocery stores, tractors, combines, crop dusters, grain silos, mills, or the FDA. Any system needs many components, most of which aren't directly consumed by someone.

Missing the point. There's absolute bare minimum food that you need to eat regardless of everything else.

Alfalfa isn’t food.

It most certainly is. It may not be the food that you like to eat personally.

certainly second hand food via bovine

You are the one who is missing the point.

Am I? What point? In my comment I stated the missed point, yours is entirely devoid of real meaning.

My comment conveyed the meaning that you aren't adequately interpreting the point of GP.

To ask "What point?" Is disingenuous, since the point was laid out pretty clearly in the lineage of comments you were responding to.

I don't/can't know why you are struggling to grasp the point. It may be because you don't want to, or it may be because you are missing some other knowledge or perspective - the only way to sus that out is for you to engage with genuine curiosity. That's outside my control. I can confirm as an external party that you are missing the point of the GP, but I can't force you to want to understand it.

You bothered to write 3 paragraphs close to the original comment length 100% being a personal attack, and failed to articulate the point in context of my comment, let alone explain how the original comment answers the eat bit.

I pointed out the question you asked seemed disingenuous and how it appeared you weren't being intellectually curious (which is the point of HN). If you treat every criticism as a personal attack then you're likely to stagnate in terms of your growth.

Here is the point from the comment you responded to, copy and pasted for your convenience. Please prove to me that spoon feeding you makes a difference:

> You could make an argument that agriculture is different because we need agricultural products to live. But we don't need those specific products to live (alfalfa, almonds, etc), and they could be grown far more efficiently if water were priced by market rates.

Got me there.

Thinking back I believe the logic was that the quote essentially says market will fix the issue, but that explanation is questionable. We know it is questionable precisely because the "fix" for the market not to starve people is more regulation. And the discussion is precisely about regulation of that kind, so the argument is circular.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com