| ▲ | tyre 2 hours ago |
| This is exactly the argument people are worried about. "If prices go up, it's a good thing." For whom? Residents will have to pay this for a decade before a nuclear reactor comes online. |
|
| ▲ | leoqa 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| “Let’s stop all new economic activity as it might have an effect on <insert commodity> prices” is just so juvenile and poorly thought through. |
| |
| ▲ | tenacious_tuna an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | That's a reductive take in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis. Of course people will resist commercial developments that'll increase the cost of one of the most essential resources everyone uses day-to-day for the sake of shareholder value. | | |
| ▲ | throw10920 an hour ago | parent [-] | | > That's a reductive take in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis. Of course people will resist commercial developments that'll increase the cost of one of the most essential resources everyone uses day-to-day Your argument conveniently ignores that electricity is tiny fraction of the average American's budget, which is far more heavily weighted toward housing, gas, and groceries. This argument is extremely tenuous. > for the sake of shareholder value This is emotionally manipulative and without substance. Data centers are being built because there's demand for them from people who want to use AI, like me. These data centers drive down the cost of AI, which is valuable to me, and to society. The fact that it also happens to increase "shareholder value" is irrelevant. | | |
| ▲ | bluefirebrand an hour ago | parent [-] | | > Data centers are being built because there's demand for them from people who want to use AI, like me No they aren't They're being built so shareholders can profit off of people like you. The fact that you benefit from it does not actually factor in any way aside from the fact that you will pay them for that benefit They aren't benevolently trying to help you out, they just want your money. The fact that you want AI and think it will help you and society is actually what is irrelevant. If they weren't confident it would make them money it would not be built no matter how beneficial it would be. | | |
| ▲ | throw10920 26 minutes ago | parent [-] | | >> Data centers are being built because there's demand for them from people who want to use AI, like me > No they aren't You literally said they are building data centers to cater to demand later on in your own comment: > If they weren't confident it would make them money it would not be built There you go. Your own point debunked by your own words. > They aren't benevolently trying to help you out I didn't say anything about the owners building stuff out of charity or benevolence. Are you responding to the wrong comment? Yours is more-or-less irrelevant to mine in addition to being self-contradictory. | | |
| ▲ | bluefirebrand 9 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Come on bud. You claimed > The fact that it (building data centers) also happens to increase "shareholder value" is irrelevant It's not irrelevant. It is the primary reason they are being built Your understanding about the cause and effect around why data centers are being built is completely backwards | | |
| ▲ | throw10920 a few seconds ago | parent [-] | | Please own up to the fact that you self-contradicted yourself in your own comment by first claiming that "No they aren't" and then "If they weren't confident it would make them money it would not be built". > It's not irrelevant. It is the primary reason they are being built ...and without any implications, that fact is irrelevant. Do you understand what relevance means? It means that there's meaning, implication. You haven't given a single follow-on implication from that hypothesis that actually matters to the discussion. > Your understanding about the cause and effect around why data centers are being built is completely backwards You don't understand your own position. You can't possibly understand mine. If you had taken a high-school economics course you would know that in this case, shareholder value and market demand imply each other. Your statement "Your understanding about the cause and effect around why data centers are being built is completely backwards" betrays a complete and total lack of understanding about economics, because there is no "backwards" when two things cause each other. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | walt_grata an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If that new economic activity has lopsided benefits and will never pay off for those negatively impacted by those price increases, then yeah shut it down or regulate it so that the benefits are shared equally by all. Shorter version, if the new economic activity is exploitive of people and their communities, then shut it down hard. | |
| ▲ | pjc50 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If I get a vote about new economic activity, and it makes me personally poorer, I'm going to need a very good argument as to why I should permit it. Or, you know, pay me. If the data centers hadn't been _quite_ so hostile to absolutely all their critics and instead had simply offered to pay for some local schools or libraries or something, at like 5% of the cost of the data center, this would have gone differently. Instead Altman says it will destroy the world: https://www.techradar.com/pro/quote-of-the-day-by-sam-altman... So it's bad for the world according to its proponents, and at the same time, a bad neighbour? Why would anyone not vote against it given those? | |
| ▲ | harimau777 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | I mean, if the new economic activity primarily serves to further enrich the wealthy then ya, that seems like a reasonable stance. |
|
|
| ▲ | andsoitis 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It will accelerate the shift to solar for residential purposes. That’s a great thing. |
|
| ▲ | rcpt 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| everyone gets a better grid. |
| |
| ▲ | toss1 an hour ago | parent [-] | | Sure, but who pays for it? If the data center which requires the grid improvements is fully paying for the upgrades, I'm OK with it. OTOH, if they expect to fob off the cost of the otherwise-optional upgrade on the rest of the ratepayers, Fck-NO! And for those who say "but it benefits the rest of the ratepayers, so they should pay too", NO! If you (person or corp) come in and demand we change something, you should be a net benefit for everyone, not just yourself. Be a good citizen and help everyone, and you'll find support. Don't, and find people see you as an asshat and you'll find opposition. |
|
|
| ▲ | tourmalinetaco 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| If we brought them up a decade earlier we wouldn’t have had to wait. Instead, we were told “renewables can replace fossil fuels”, despite us lacking the battery capacity to make them viable for the grid. Nuclear is a direct replacement for fossil fuels with better energy generation and actual on-demand capabilities, plus it’s far safer than fossil fuel-backed media will admit. We could have been using both and have completely cut down on emissions while also increasing the lifetime of our nuclear stores. https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy |
|
| ▲ | HumblyTossed an hour ago | parent | prev [-] |
| For that little old retired lady who is on a fixed income, of course! It means she'll have to sell that cute little house of hers and let someone turn it into an AirBnB and make some actual money from it. /s |
