744 karma · joined October 8, 2022
The US does not use crude oil from the Gulf to generate electricity. The US could scale electricity production at least 100 times without needing to import anything from the Middle East.
> there will be more once rivers start drying up
Rivers will not be drying up because of data centers.
yes.
The only threat to stable and affordable electricity supply is government regulations. The idea that we will from here on just have degrown and decline is insane. I'm not up for that. Which means we will always need more electricity, so time to get building more power plants. There is no bounds to how much electricity humans need, and the more we have the more prosperity we will have
As for water supply. Data centers barely make a blip on the water usage.
> The water, light and noise pollution?
The only one of these which actually has any validity is noise pollution, and the US has one of the lowest population densities of any country in the world, and data centres don't need to be close to population centres.
> The threat to jobs?
CEOs saying they are laying people off because of AI is not the same as anyone losing their job because of AI, but even if that was the case, it's about as smart as not using an electric drill to save jobs.
> The threat to truth and transparency?
AI does not only not threaten truth and transparency, it makes it easier to find the truth and to circumvent transperency restrictions.
> The threat to privacy?
It's not.
No. I'm not. The post I responded to literally said: "By burning the institutions down", which is why I asked "Which institutions has Trump burned down?"
> Take the EPA for another example
EPA is not an institution, it's a regulatory body which is part of the executive branch of the US government.
Also very odd that you did not actually address my question: how much less was spent on "scientific funding" by the US government in 2025?
Can you share exactly how much less was spent on "scientific funding" by the US government in 2025, and how exactly that amounts to Trump burning down the institutions?
[1]: https://www.independent.org/article/2025/12/30/2025-festivus...
What relevance does the common ground between countries have to morality? How does the common ground between Turkey and Greece, Saudi Arabia and Iran, Russia and Ukraine, North Korea and South Korea, China and Japan "discover" morality? Countries almost by definition don't have common ground, the closest they have is contested ground. People may have common ground, but it's somewhat fanciful to suggest that the representatives of the 18 countries who drafted the UDHR somehow was in any position to act as the moral representatives even for the 18 countries they represented.
They were some diplomats, probably all thoroughly immoral people if we somehow ever manage to figure out what the word moral actually meant, which I doubt.
Can you elaborate on this process as you understand it? I just can't quite wrap my head around this. To me, it seems that at best this process will result in something that exactly no person in the world would recognize as moral. A bit like Solomon's proposal to split the baby.
How do you define morality if you think the UN can discover it? Is there any way to check their work? Can I do a test to see if they made a mistake as I can with any other scientific disciple which discovers things about our world? Does their work make some prediction that we can actually check against reality to see if it's true or false?
> It is a moral statement, not a law.
How do you figure that? Does the UN define morality for all peoples in the world? Evidently not. What moral weight is added to some text if some governments of some countries have voted for it?
Not even the votes of the majority one people group in their national home define morality, so the votes of the UN General Assembly definitely does not define morality.
Also just because FTTH exists does not mean it's reliable.
Even though I'm sure it won't be easy to convince the Postgres project to switch to Rust, I do think that trying would be time better spent.
Of course the black people were let go. After all, they did nothing wrong, they just assaulted a white guy.
Is there some research or study that you base this claim on? What is the reasoning? Can you elaborate?
SPARQL's standard protocol for sending Queries uses HTTP[1], and yes, of course it allows clients to define the query that it sends over HTTP. HTTP QUERY would be ideal for SPARQL queries. There are also many unprotected SPARQL endpoints that you can use without any authentication [2][3].
[1]: https://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-protocol/#query-operation
Every single SQL server allows a client to dictate the query. Furthermore, not all queries are SQL queries.
The problem is, though, given Anthropic have said all of that, they really have very little grounds for objecting to the US government's intervention here. Everything that the government would have to prove to justify their intervention has already been freely admitted by Anthropic, even though the "admission" was maybe more intended as a marketing ploy.