The demand is all coming from AI data centres. We had data centres being built for years without this massive spike in demand.

It boggles my mind that no policy maker seems able to turn the AI demand for energy into an opportunity. Historically, where there's a surge in demand from wealthy industrial customers for a service, governments have been able to extract additional value. The obvious thing to do is to turn to the data centres owners and say "we are happy to give you grid connections, but we're going to charge you at twice the current market rate to fund infrastructure and lower bills for householders". It's such an obvious populist move, I don't understand why it's not being pursued, at least in the UK where we don't have the complete batshittery of US politics.

I'm one of the 18 people in the world who don't live in the US.

So frigging annoying that almost every post on here just accepts the ridiculous framing that Sinij has been pushing, that the most significant effect of this change will be to cut costs because vehicles will become more reliable. Obviously, the two most significant effects will be:
- Vehicles will cost more to operate, because they will need more fuel per mile
- Vehicles will spew more pollutants per mile, damaging the environment and hurting the health of people (and animals)

But because of the framing, no one has talked about this

He never has and he never will. It's all just a bollixy old story he tells himself, like the one about who Slashdot readers are, because he absolutely will not countenance that this is about points on a scale and supporting modal shifts for as many journeys as possible, rather than just trying to stop the use of cars / trucks altogether:
Active transport > electrified public transport > ICE public transport > EV private transport >>> ICE private transport.

That is a very convoluted explanation of how this is going to cost Americans money, just like the stuff about how vehicles are going to be magically more reliable is a convoluted explanation of how this is going to mean Americans spend less.

The blindingly obvious truth is that the operating costs for vehicles is going to increase, because they will use more fuel per mile in the future. And that is the direct and clear reason that this is going to cost Americans money. The other obvious reason is that it is going to be just another way in which US OEMs will diverge from global secular market trends, and thus lose out on economies of scale.

Incredible that this is what you post as an example of a small vehicle in Europe, rather than, say, this:
https://www.renault.co.uk/new-...

Ar3 you just going to ... ignore the gigantic bailouts that US OEMs received? Not to mention the costs of the various wars fought to keep the fuel flowing, the unfunded externalities, etc? So you're going to count some subsidies (the ones in China) but ignore others (the ones in the US)? Seems like a lot of motivated reasoning to me.

It's hilarious that you think Tesla makes small cars. An actual small car is something like a Fiat 500e or a Hyundai Inster, not a frigging Model 3.

Your statement and your sig seem very much at odds with each other

Apple has not sold directly in Russia since 2022. There are parallel imports but no direct sales.

You’ve only described one half of the coin (and not very accurately in my view). The other side is the flip side, under which there are huge quantities of CSAM, suicide being promoted, scams and hustles of every kind tricking or coercing the vulnerable into giving up their savings, and of course endless torrents of the vilest abuse directed towards lots and lots of people of various types. The problems of the internet absolutely do include people saying things that would not be legal if said in any other medium, whether on TV or in a pub.

Your first post sure made it sound like you had clear insight into what these folks were and were not predicting. This second post makes it sound like you don’t know. Until you know, how can you tell whether or not what they’re providing is useful or not?

“Predict flooding” is a uselessly vague term for you to use. Like saying that when my mother-in-law got her terminal cancer diagnosis, the oncologist didn’t predict her death because you have in mind some level of precision for a prediction that she would die that meant that the terminal diagnosis wasn’t a good prediction of her death. Sowhat, specifically, is the detail that you think First First Street are claiming to be able to provide insight on, for which you don’t think they should?

I could see why a CIC could make this work. The main problem outside London is that populations are less concentrated, and there's relatively less money (bc London is so disproportionately wealthy compared to the rest of the country). And while these services ought to appeal to people wanting to save money through switching from ownership to a PAYG model, I don't think that's what happens in practice.