Comment by archagon | Hacker News Reader

Comment by archagon | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> How exactly do I have a "vested financial interest in building out data centers"?

You work directly in AI: https://sockpuppet.org/blog/2026/09/25/what-even-is-an-os-no...

> I'm relating an extremely normal take that you've managed to be scandalized by

It's extremely normal, and yet I'm not the only one giving you pushback. So maybe not as normal as you think?

> I oppose public comment processes for the same reason that everybody working in permitting reform --- especially for housing --- does

This article is about data centers specifically, but you've made it about All The Things Together, wrapped in a rant about the public comment process. You're saying that people don't see the "abstract upside of new development" and veto it for bad or selfish reasons. I'm saying that data center construction is a categorically different type of new development that has far fewer "abstract upsides" than the other things you listed and sees widespread pushback beyond the usual NIMBY crowd. The things you dislike about the public comment process simply do not generalize to this tempest of a situation.

Do you think that means I make my own data centers? Like, to get my next product off the ground, I have to go site a data center somewhere near you? How do you think the world works?

You are relaying NIMBY talking points (down to "you have a vested interest in shutting down public comment", which is a first-ballot hall-of-famer), because you're so negatively polarized against data centers. It's a weird thing to be proud of.

NIMBYism and NIMBY talking points aren't inherently wrong. There are just very high-profile instances of NIMBYism in the cultural headspace that are wrong, which results in things like "NIMBY talking point" being used as a standalone criticism despite being insufficient as one.

NIMBYism is inherently wrong.

Since I don't think you're irrational, I assume it's probably just a semantic disagreement then. E.g. you're probably using the word to mean "unreasonable opposition to development from locals" while I use it to mean "any opposition to development from locals", rather than restricting the definition to petty things like "I don't want anything built near me that will cause my property value to go down no matter who it benefits".

But now that I think about it, I think either definition supports my criticism of your use of the term as a generic net for "you're wrong", like all the traditional one-worders in social/political arguments.

Sorry, I've lost track of what you're trying to argue. But I'll say again: it's easy to find examples of people negatively polarized into support of NIMBYism, which is exactly what is happening when people valorize public comment in opposition of development. There's an entire Current Affairs cover story where Nathan Robinson gets negatively polarized into opposing housing. It's a thing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com