"data centers have partnered with nearby other facilities that need thermal energy. "

Google never did this to my knowledge. The logistics were too difficult and not worth it.

"How much of this water is returned back into the system?"

  Almost none. It's evaporated into the air, taking the thermals with it.

"How much of this water is pulled directly from a river then returned to it a little warmer?"

  None. Google looked at doing that to the Columbia river in Oregon, but the temperature rise it'd cause was deemed as dangerous to the fishing stocks and so it was not allowed to.

The one exception is the DC in Finland, which is adjacent to the sea. They can pull and dump the thermals into the sea directly, as obviously the ocean has more thermal capacity than a single river.

"This is how liquid cooling a nuclear power plant works. Why would it be any different for a data center?"

because power plants are public utilities and Google isn't. What's good for the public isn't necessarily allowed for a private enterprise. Also I don't think that even power plants are allowed to be constructed to do that anymore, as it was realized as being too damaging to ecosystems.

 

They don't tend to dump it back into the system, but cool the severs through a closed loop system that cools via evaporation. The majority of the water consumption of Google is therefore released as water evaporation into the air.

âoe The company is so secretive that, when asked for comment for this story, it threatened VICE with legal action if we published this article. âoe Will they never learn? Streisand effect, etc.

The obvious big danger here is companies conflating competitive threat with security threat, thereby reducing their credibility wrt legit security concerns in the name of protecting profits. To date, the security business has been an ivory tower of credibility and collaboration, and its necessary to keep it as such. The inexorable push of capitalism heaps another good idea onto the slag pile.

I had to check to make sure it wasn't April 1st, when /. notoriously goes to shit. I find this fact remarkable. I'm not sure if it makes him in touch or a criminal, but that kind of technical literacy in politics in interesting in it's own right.

That is really optimistic about people following directions. I think the author under appreciates vandalism, or simply not following directions out of spite.

If one of those Help buttons was pushed repeatedly, for example. Or if one of the employees didn't do what it was told. Or the employees attempted to outsmart "manna" by probing for it's logic weaknesses, and, then finding them, exploit them.

One of the reasons that employees are reluctant to exploit human mangers is because of the guilt they'd feel. There'd be less guilt in exploiting the oversight weaknesses of an AI, and it'd become a game.

"For example, Scott Adams was banned from twitter"

--"I would regard it as treason"

lol no. He knows about as much about the Constitution as his favored candidate knows. Treason is a capital offense from the constitution, one of few, and this is not that. It's doesn't even violate the First Amendment, although it might be censorship.

I don't know anything either way about the trueness of his claims of being shadowbanned by Twitter, but it's not treason, and it's not a First Amendment issue, and it's not even remotely illegal. If you don't like their platform, don't use it.

It'd be pretty funny if Scott was able to prevent the sale of Twitter, though.

Why not use key based auth instead of password based?

Probably for the same reasons that crypto email never worked out, but I wish it were an option on things like banking websites.

I'm now using a password manager, so I can use pretty hard passwords without having to try to remember them. But using signed certs would be much much stronger still.

That's a good point. If the moderation system was all that, the sensitive souls would brigade every post made in /r/fatpeoplehate and it'd take care of itself.

And naturally the ability to freely create new subs and new accounts mean that any banning is at best temporary.

I usually agree with you, but this is actually funny.

If Reddit declines because someone is prevented from promulgating rape advice, I'm ok with that. Even if the advice is legal to give and print. I need reddit a lot less than I need my daughter to not be raped. And I'm active on reddit.

I'm not so sure that they would reject anyone who downloaded, but that they would reject someone who lied about it. I've seen reports that they will even accept candidates that have some minor drug use in their distant past, but the problem with their application comes when it's lied about.

For starters, OP meant Nevada, not Arizona. And it's better to have some manufacturing base than none. NV is currently dependent on tourism, which is even more fickle. I'm sure that NV is hoping that the gigafactory spawns even more EV mfg investment in the state.

The US responding by invading Cuba would certainly be an interesting escalation. Probably lead to an all out shooting war with Russia, but interesting anyways.