as a followup to my previous reply, Musk has been a secretive cunt about this all along.
Originally it was supposed to be 15 temp units but instead they deployed 18, Then they quietly increased the number to 33 and then 46 all while publicly stating a lower number.
When it was discovered the number had grown to 59 and pressure was building on the company they started talking about removing some "very soon' WHILE adding TEN more for a total of 69 units!!
WTAF??

Maybe you're just committed to rage (look, it's Mr Social Media) but IT SEEMS like you're "too stupid" to see that I was very, very specifically criticizing the commenter in the story that complained "How many people does it take to run a data center after taking up all this property and all this land that could have been used for something else?" eg, that data centers don't provide satisfactory employees per area numbers (when that land likely was being used for agriculture, which is generally EVEN FEWER employees per area).

That IS a stupid take.
What's even stupider is misreading my comment as some sort of criticism about agriculture, which it wasn't even faintly.

L2READ, dipshit.

The EPA regs apply to all such whether temporary or permanent. Emissions are emissions, period.

The state loophole which Musk exploited and was finally overruled as a misapplication of the regs was intended as an exception for much smaller units.
Be that as it may, Musk and many who work for him knew the impact of continuous operation on local air quality and would never have dared if the community was wealthy & influential but if you're not meritorious enough to be rich, sucks to be you.

Wait, what do you mean that's wrong?

Because we are locking up trillions of dollars of money for use by about 2,000 or 3,000 people. We have levels of wealth inequality that are worse than the gilded age right before the Great depression.

You're mixing up should and is. This is a common mistake people make.

There should be plenty of money. There isn't. Because a very tiny handful of people have taken it all for themselves and are grinding civilization to a halt. Money is no longer properly circulating in the economy because so much of it is being pushed to the top. This means that the share left over after Elon Musk launches his rockets and becomes a trillionaire is too small to sustain a functioning economy. And as it gets worse it'll become too small to sustain a functioning civilization.

The basic problem here is there's a finite amount of resources in the world and there are a near infinite number of psychopathic assholes who want to be trillionaires. The supply cannot meet the demand. And try as anyone might you can't convince the 12 year olds in adult bodies that you can't have a functioning civilization and billionaires let alone trillionaires...

At least for the time being there's a weird thing where you go deep into the settings hit a button and then wait 24 hours and you can install whatever you want. It's clearly there because they are afraid of antitrust law enforcement from Europe.

Eventually assuming all goes as planned they will take that feature away once they get Europe under control and get their people in charge over there. Europe can see that coming but it's going to be hard to stop it because frankly America just has too much money and power and we keep interfering with people's politics. Europe could stop letting the Russians fuck with us over here in the US but their billionaires are hoping that America will collapse so that they can become trillionaires themselves. So that's not on the table.

So there is less inventory hitting the market. This is been a consistent problem with the car market for some time. Our entire transportation network is built around cheap affordable automobiles. Better off people sell their cars and then struggling people can buy them for cheap. I'm pretty damn sure people around here are old enough to remember driving a beater that cost you a summers worth of minimum wage pay throughout your entire College life.

You can't do that anymore. A buddy of mine who has much better off relatives just got gifted a 2014 Toyota with relatively low mileage and I was shocked how expensive the damn thing was worth.

And my kid is still driving the same Toyota that I bought them 8 years ago or so and their sophomore year of college. That will change when they get out of grad school I'm sure but you're talking a viable used car with somebody who has been making what is good money for an American for about 8 years off the market.

It's all well and good the wax poetic about how great it is to be frugal but our economic system can't function with frugality. It'll break down just like it would in 1930. When the boomers die studies show that they are going to take around 75% of the money with them. It's all going to get spent on survival and healthcare. And thanks to wealth inequality the remaining 25% is going to be given disproportionately to a tiny number of people.

This is a major economic crisis literally nobody is talking about. Because the baby boomers are the only ones who were allowed to have good paying jobs. They are the ones keeping the economy going because they're the only ones who have any discretionary spending.

So when they drop dead in about 5 or 10 years all that money gets hoovered up by our healthcare system and goes away. If you're not planning on being dead of old age by then then congratulations you're looking at an economic collapse. And with all the automation going on even more so.

But hey how about them trans girls in sports am I right? Look over there be distracted! They're going to take your cookies! Excuse me cookie, singular.

So even those countries tend to have systems that lend themselves to winner take all. For example the UK still has you only casting one vote per politician. That's the basic problem. You need something like ranked choice voting where you're able to cast a vote for someone you want to win but if they don't you're not throwing your vote away. That's the problem with winner take all voting. It forces you into binary choices and then the billionaires, now trillionaires, can exploit that.

To be fair America's voting system is uniquely vulnerable to these kind of attacks from billionaires because it was set up that way on purpose by the wealthy landowners who created our government. Just like how they didn't do away with slavery they put all sorts of nastiness in our systems to protect their wealth and power. They knew what they were doing was wrong but they did it anyway and they were expecting and hoping future generations would fix it for them. At least the ones who want just bastards there were plenty of those.

There's an old saying, history is supposed to make you feel uncomfortable

A balloon is not static, it moves with the atmospheric system it is in. Ergo, it tells you how that system evolves. A drone cannot do this.

A drone can stay put, relative to the ground, telling you how a location's atmosphere evolves. A balloon cannot do this.

These are solving completely different types of problem.

You could, of course, construct a hybrid, as balloons are traditionally single-shot. If a balloon carries the measurement gear and a drone capable of carrying that same gear PLUS a deflated balloon, then you can have something that operates as a balloon until it reaches some pre-set location, whereupon the balloon's gas is released and the drone flies the ensemble to a collection point.

No need to help you. If you're actually addicted you'll figure it out.

Maybe get addicted to an education instead. Words have meanings, and neither Uber Eats or Fortnite meet the definitions of the words you used in that same sentence.

We actually don't need anecdotes. We have actual statistics to work with which show that smoking rates in under 18s have plummeted. Also what do you mean a kid smelling of smoke would have been noticed immediately? Yes. The answer is yes. Kids smelled of smoke. But you couldn't punish kids for smelling, you could only punish them for catching them in the act, and even then only on school grounds. ... Sorta... I went to a private school so there was a "disgracing the uniform" policy that many kids got in trouble for when they were seen (and recognised) smoking in public while wearing their blazers.

Congrats, you discovered the point I was making while trying to counter it.

No it's not. Your right to free speech is not impinged by preventing Facebook from offering you a service. At no point are you being censored or persecuted for what you say.

Tell us you don't know anything about Taylor Swift without telling us. You don't need to do any guess work here, there's a lot of behind the scenes "making of" footage out there. Most of her songs being in her head, and then get punched into piano keys or strummed on guitar strings while she takes note in an old fashioned pen and paper style notebook.

Virtually none of her music is loop-based, virtually none of it is sampled. And calling someone who expertly plays 8 instruments and writes all their own music not an "actual musician" isn't an insult to her, it just demonstrates what a loser you actually are.

I don't like Taylor Swift's music, but will happily defend her from being shat on by ... wait didn't she write a song about you? Haters gonna hate or something like that?

Just because people aren't paying attention to the opening act doesn't mean it's forgettable, it just means they paid for something other than watching the opening act. There have been some truly excellent opening acts, in fact your favourite band was likely at some point an opening act for someone else.