AI stocks slide as Texas governor result raises data center risks
cnbc.com
cnbc.com
Is it growing wealth for the country? Will everyone's wealth grow equally or will it mostly concentrate in people who are already wealthy.
Maybe real economic development is something different to you??
We are told this work will grow the economy. When asked how, they point to companies that are losing money hand over fist. It doesn't make sense and voters are not stupid.
The sentinels downvote anything that may reveal the truth about the datacenter scheme, no matter how true - no counterpoints, no discussion of any kind, just naked downvoting.
One of my comments was heavily downvoted for pointing out the obvious truth that utility companies are asked to raise rates for building new power plants that are used only for the sole benefit of datacenter owners who demand that everybody should pay for those new plants.
Datacenter isn't meant to grow "the economy" it's meant to be a business that brings the state money by buying things and paying local and state taxes with revenue primarily generated from outside the state.
Joking about how you just spent half a billion dollars trying to undermine American democracy (no less as someone with citizenship in 3 countries) is not a great look
so basically wall to wall datacenters and ice-prisons inbound
they don't have to worry about global warming, they'll waive diesel generator permits
or maybe even start new coal plants for them
also charter-schools, new Governor is on his way to becoming a billionaire from "managing" them
Seems like a moment for "are we the baddies?" style reflection.
Using onsite fossil fuel electricity generation as primary power source, instead of waiting for the grid to catch up (preferably a decarbonized grid), depends on corrupt assholes being in charge.
Isn't this true about whole US politics, where lobby groups fund elections, so that politician later returns a favor to them?
To make their (lobby groups) job easier, this election theatre has only 2 actors to pick from, imagine how expensive would be if you always had 8-9 real contenders and media didn't control the narrative
You know why I can play this game all day? Because the base premise doesn't hold.
(I'm a swing voter if that helps.)
For a while...
In your understanding, what do you think caused the last few recessions?
This is where third-worlders have absolutely no illusions. They know how the system works.
The heavy anti-datacenter campaigning was primarily aimed at scaring votes out of old people and other low-information voters, and was largely successful. With that mission accomplished it's back to business as usual.
I personally observed old ladies gossiping at the polls. A lot of them don't even know what data centers are, just that they are bad and will steal their electricity and make their arthritis worse.
All politicians regardless of party are bought and paid for.
Literally every instance I've seen where the angry townspeople fought against a data center, the town council unanimously ruled against them without a vote, like the kangaroo court in The Godfather Part 2.
If anything the pro-build people should be for regulation so that citizens can know a local buildout means no power outages, water shortages etc. - preventing communities from rejecting DCs for purely defensive reasons.
It's clear the AI companies have not managed the message here, they have fumbled the politics. This is a deserved loss on their part.
They have had 3+ years to make this argument, and they knew they needed to advocate for their own businesses. So why did they instead join in on the chorus of "we're going to take your jobs, teeheehee"?
It's an absolute own goal. If you want DCs built, direct your ire at the AI companies for reckless messaging.
That doesn't explain data center's being explicitly rejected by local voters[0] who, in many of those places, also voted for their districts candidates that supported data centers, such as in FL and OH.
Dog-catcher candidates were taking disingenuous anti-datacenter stances if they thought it could get them votes.
Unnecessarily cynical but even if it were true the major parties have different ideas on holding their elected accountable.
Don't hold your breath: their human rights record is already in the dumps (see Uyghurs and Tibetans), and they seem to have no problem having all kinda of territorial ambitions (see Taiwan, South China Sea, India and Bhutan, etc).
Add in the authoritarianism and corruption, and I'm pretty sure you have a recipe for a country you absolutely DO NOT want in a position of global power.
As I say, I don't want to dismiss what China is doing as "well the US are doing it too", it's just worth pointing out if that's a red line for a global power
Deliberately or not, your comment is an example of whataboutism [0]
All due respect, I literally said that, twice. I suppose you could still call it whataboutism by technicality, but it doesn't quite have the same ring to it.
My point was that replacing a benevolent superpower with one that is not is quite a different situation than a "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" one, and I was just pointing out that this is the latter, not the former.
> My point was that replacing a benevolent superpower with one that is not
I didn't get that from your comment; it rather came across as a laundry list for why the US is not benevolent.
I think it largely does. Look at the stated purpose of it in the wikipedia article you linked:
> It is an informal fallacy that the accused party uses to avoid accountability—whether attempting to distract by shifting the conversation's focus away from their behaviour or attempting to justify themselves by pointing to the similar behaviour
Pointing out that China is still responsible for its actions and the US doing it too doesn't justify them makes it whataboutism without a purpose. Like I say, whataboutism by technicality, rather than as a counter-argument.
> I didn't get that from your comment; it rather came across as a laundry list for why the US is not benevolent.
I think it can be quite easily inferred. We don't want China as a superpower because of X. The US is a superpower. The US also does X. Therefore...
Again, I said this at the end:
> it's just worth pointing out if that's a red line for a global power
1. Reeducating/integrating restive minorities instead of actually geocoding them and winning their war on terror without droning all the school children. Nobel Peace prize stuff.
2. Inheriting all border disputes from ROC, then settling 11/13 land, essentially all with more concessions. Even 5 way SCS, PRC first to concede 11 dash down to9 dash. AKA not only did PRC not initiatate any disputes, they settled majority vs reasonable parties and now manages rest vs frankly petulant chidren, i.e. India (bhutan who can't settle because India) and most SCS claimants... TLDR autistic democracies who demand 100% instead of some sort of split - aka utterly retarded position given to losers of wars. This the kind of absurd idiocy PRC magnanimity gracefully handling.
3. We tried flipflop US democracy that still manage to bomb kids under every administration almost every year. I'm sure pretty sure there are better recipes to try.
TLDR: Once you put down the the libtard koolaid, PRC should be getting literally every Nobel Peace prize for how benevolent they've been.
There are many accounts regarding of and from the Uyghurs which directly contradict this. Also see any of the numerous knife attacks (many targeting school children [0]).
> 2. Inheriting all border disputes from ROC then settling 11/13 land, essentially all with more concessions
It would be news to many of China's neighbours that their border (and sea) disputes are settled [1].
> 3. We tried flipflop US democracy that still manage to bomb kids under every administration almost every year. I'm sure pretty sure there are better recipes to try.
America notoriously has a problem with school shootings, not bombings.
> TLDR: Once you put down the the libtard koolaid, PRC should be getting literally every Nobel Peace prize for how benevolent they've been.
Antipathy towards China goes across the political spectrum - if anything, it's more associated with conservative hawks.
If you disagree with arguments that China is the antithesis of a benevolent super-power, that is your right. But the manner of your comment is not conducive to a productive discussion in this regard.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_attacks_in_Chin... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_disputes_of_China