But in that sense we're getting into semantic hairsplitting. "Annoying" != "dirty"
To your points:
* Noise of generators and cooling systems, the DC being built too close to existing homes, more of a zoning council fail but it happens as DC money can make the council turn a blind eye to the local residents desires.
Zoning issue, as I mentioned.

* Vibration, lots of big engines and such can create vibrations that travel thru the ground (or very low frequency) that can disturb sleep and such even if it doesn't measure on the sound meter.
Zoning issue, as I mentioned.

* Diesel exhaust if that's used for generators.
CLEARLY a Zoning issue, as I mentioned.

* Water supplies can be consumed (& denied to locals) or even "contaminated" (like being warmed too much for the local wildlife), or aquifers can be drained faster than they can replenish.
Not a zoning but pricing issue; I've been involved in commercial/industrial planning, and water consumption is certified; if it exceeds capacity, it shouldn't get a permit (zoning issue, basically) at all. Otherwise, it should be charged for what it takes; if the price is calculated accurately this shouldn't be an issue.
The warming of local aquifers and surface water is 100% a valid point though as I don't know of any regulatory system that comprehends/accommodates/costs this into the factor. Good point.

* Electricity as this article is about
Pricing issue. If it's slated to need X mwh, then it should be charged for it. If the local grid has to build capacity to accomodate, that's a planning issue and likely a surcharge for the major user(s). If this isn't happening, again, local regulatory issue.

* Dropping local property values of existing homes
If a business is properly zoned, compelled(!) to comply with local ordinances about noise, emissions, vibration, traffic, etc there's zero reason this would impact local home values.

* Taxation issues because cities want to bring the DC in and give tax abatements, but there are still local services required so the extra costs get passed on to others
The tax abatement issue is absolutely a genuine one; such arrangements HAVE TO ensure basic services are paid for, and that only the marginal 'profit' from such projects' taxation is in play. Most local councils have some level of corruption, unfortunately, and too few local residents give enough of a shit to make any change.

"The company naturally took a build now/ permit later approach to essentially building their own power plant, as one does."

I live in MN. We were building a coating plant here in the late 1990s and it involved a thermal system to burn away solvents that escaped from our coating process (we're a EU firm, and have been recycling this back into power for our dryers for years reducing solvent emissions to basically 0) so I was heavily involved with the MN PCA and EPA who (surprisingly) had no algorithms to comprehend such a system yet in the US. So I had a year or more of fairly deep engineering discussions with regulators.

TN certainly has its own rules but I don't understand how a company could have a "The company naturally took a build now/ permit later approach to essentially building their own power plant, as one does." Doesn't your example VERY SPECIFICALLY support my point that this isn't so much an issue about the data center but about the lax implementation of basic regulation and zoning limits that the could do so and even survive the regulatory consequence?

Ultimately /. will need to block Chinese ragebater ACs just to keep the smegma out of the comments.

I didn't say I disagree with it, but it illustrates the stupidity of your trying to make this about chauvinism.

I genuinely don't know. I don't have all the answers.
But when the literal best dirt the Dems can come up with is "Trump is mentioned!" even then the point isn't what they're trying to make it seem: ...yes, he's mentioned because he was telling them to STOP BEING PEDOS.
"In one of the emails, dated January 2019 and sent to columnist Michael Wolff, Epstein said of Trump: âoeOf course, he knew about the girls as he asked Ghislaine to stop.â"

https://www.theguardian.com/us...

Where did he claim this?

He famously said the Epstein and he shared a love of women but Epstein's tastes 'ran a little young'.
He tossed Epstein out of Maralago for creeping on young female staff, and volunteered cooperation with Epstein's only prosecution.
Epstein papers that have been released show he seethed about Trump.

The Dems tried a docudump that - if they had anything - would have ABSOLUTELY included damning evidence. "Trump knew about the girls" - sure, Epstein himself talked about it, but not in the way that helps your point:
(From the Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/us...) In one of the emails, dated January 2019 and sent to columnist Michael Wolff, Epstein said of Trump: âoeOf course, he knew about the girls as he asked Ghislaine to stop.â
He's literally mentioned telling them to STOP. Are you people stupid?

Now Trump is fighting his own congress to get the papers out.

Serious question.
I get that they can be noisy (although to me that feels like lazy/weak zoning regulations, because sound mitigation in that context isn't really even hard) but I don't understand how they can be "dirty" implying local pollution or particulates.

We know that cached data will leak, eventually.
So why keep so much data?

(We know the answer, because they can sell it.)

I fully understand that details of people's driving habits absolutely can usefully inform car design. No issue. But it could be anonymized at a quite low level.

Ultimately until the penalties for data loss exceed their value to the firms (not just car companies) literally farming us for data, this won't ever stop.

I think the renaming of the Dept of Defense was stupid.
I think there was no legit reason to move Maxwell.
I don't think Trump is a pedo, because that doesn't square with his tossing out Epstein because he was a creeper, and poor Miss Giuffre could EASILY directly have implicated Trump but didn't.

Any more questions you disingenuous coward?

It's HER point you moron.

And?

What's your point?

That we should continue to make things we don't need because they "only" cost $56 million?

I don't disagree that there are bigger things out there, but the bigger things are, the more bloody the fight and in a country split 50/50 that's hard to accomplish.
Look at the FUROR surrounding the obliteration of USAID; this is a program that *started* under the premise of using US aid dollars to funnel toward CIA goals of undercutting foreign governments. In the latter few decades, it has become a $30-$40bn/yr slush fund for woke bullshit if not outright Democrat-promoting propaganda.

Personally, I wish Musk was still in there slashing the SHIT out of the federal budgets, but Congressional Republicans showed their true colors - that they're just a different color of hog, feeding at the fucking trough - so he bailed and I don't blame him.

The federal government needs an AXE on spending. And this is to sacred cows both left and right. I would personally FREEZE spending in all deparments as-is (you could take an average over the last 10y or whatever to smooth out beneficial/detrimental spikes) no inflation increases, until the budget = income.

So you missed the part that the book/paper/presentation was authored by a woman, then?

Trump appreciates you donating him permanent space in your thoughts.