DangitBobby

Awareness is not change. What we've really seen is the incredibly high cost of true patriotism and the absence of action from government and citizens alike. And not just absence of action, but also rhetorical responses ranging anywhere from deflection to character assassination.

One example of acting in good faith would be not to attribute the actions of a group of people to the characteristics of a small number of individuals who were not involved in the aforementioned actions. Are you responsible for every evil thing your country has done while you've chosen to remain a citizen? Another example of good faith is keeping the discussion narrowed down to relevant facts rather than including anything negative you can think of. V2 to V3 is so out of left field it's mind boggling to me that you'd consider it relevant to this conversation.

Reporting up the chain of command in a structure that supports and encourages such reports is one thing. We are talking about an unsanctioned action that you take against the express or implied desires of those above you. And a legal system that will back them up, despite you having definitely done the right thing.

The downside risk to yourself doesn't have to be existential for the upside to not be worth it.

Coming at this from a completely different angle, other people may see their duty to the law and the agreements they've signed as being more morally binding over their behaviors than their social obligation to raise the alarm. Not everyone uses the same formula to calculate which duty is most important.

Just can't do it, can you

No anycorp, yes

I doubt you are asking in good faith, because I suspect a good faith interlocutor would have worked this out on their own, but I'll proceed anyway.

On the one hand, you've potentially got an indeterminate number of future comfortable years based on a subjective assessment of how long you think it takes catastrophe to materialize, with the downside that you can't warn anyone and so no one will stop the coming catastrophe.

On the other hand you've got the immediate assurance of your current career being gone and high likelihood that you'll struggle financially as a result, with the upside that you can provide a warning to the public that they will almost certainly ignore and catastrophe comes anyway.

Given the risk/reward assessment of those two options, what do you pick?

This entire line of reasoning is just toxic. You represent a charicature of these people in your head and dole out self-righteous condemnation.

I think those two examples are a perfect demonstration of how futile it is to throw everything away to inform the public.

What if we displayed a modicum of good faith and grace

You'd be willing to destroy your career to publish a warning no one will need?

That doesn't seem to have the best track record for leading to positive change

Were the normal people who lost everything ever bailed out?

First, if your company could double its workforce for free right now with 0 plans for how to convert the extra bodies into revenue, how long would it take them to see a return? Because from what I understand companies aren't leaving money on the table, if hiring someone would make them more money they just would. AI could help those that weren't maximizing revenue despite having high demand and a market because they were resource constrained. That doesn't describe very many large companies.

Second, I'm getting huge value from it, but I'm not making any money and none of it is being redirected. It's simply value that wouldn't have existed otherwise because I would have just gone without the thing because it was prohibitively expensive or too much work. I'm quite sure many companies and people have been unlocked in this way. Plenty of value locked up in an overly expensive economy dedicated to maximum value extraction instead of value creation.

It is sad but people won't do the right thing unless it costs them nothing.

It is pretty dumb. But much less dumb.

It's not how much energy is used, it's how much wasted heat energy is dumped into the surrounding environment. Seems like a much more apt comparison in that light. Second paragraph of TFA:

> An analysis of the mammoth data centre proposed by celebrity investor Kevin O’Leary suggests it would release the equivalent of 23 atom bombs of heat waste into the boreal forest of northwestern Alberta every day.

Some people are trying, there's no question. I feel quite safe supporting the characterization that so far we have "refused to wean" ourselves off of fossil fuels. The comment you replied to makes my position quite clear and all the necessary qualitiers are right there.

You'd have to take a public poll. The public comment period could be overwhelmingly negative even with the community in broad support because the "pro data-center" posture only requires silence.

To be fair it's a non-political post with a political title which invited a conversation/argument completely unrelated to the contents. I'm not against politics here but this is exactly the low quality flame bait that this site would be better without.

Doesn't really seem like the city was interested in finding an answer to that question.

> refuse to wean ourselves off fossil fuels

> Dropping fossil fuels today would kill people too

Wean and drop are pretty different. Many US citizens and Republican politicians have shown less than 0 interest in making progress and the Trump administration in particular has actively sabotaged the effort.

Not really true, many countries made moves. It didn't help that the US was/is being a gigantic ignorant petulant child about the whole situation, signaling to the rest of the world that we were going to make meaningful emission reduction an uphill battle.

Why? I didn't start using more energy elsewhere when I switched to an EV or electric lawn maintenance tools. You think companies and people are using exactly as much power as available (or they can afford)?

That's what batteries are for

My experience with DnD has been that it pretty much just works how I want it to. DnD from 10 PM to 8 AM, only certain people can reach me via call or text, alarms break through it. Never had any buggy behior setting, editing, or deleting alarms.

The only spam that still manages to consistently burden me is delivered to my real mailbox by USPS!

You Can See Everything is definitely worth watching.

It's time to retire TDS. Either you've been paying attention and you understand there are no unfathomable lows for him, or you haven't and you look naive. Either way, put it up.

There isn't really any similarity. Like I said, people use it or make a play on it for dramatic effect when something bad happens.

It's a play on "the beatings will continue until morale improves". You obviously can't just beat morale into people, and, knowing that, the audience should understand improvements to a bad situation will not be forthcoming. It's often used for dramatic effect as dark/silly humor when something bad happens.