I listened to a radio interview with Bernie... apparently he wants this so that "citizens can block harmful policies". So that probably explains the 50% - they want voting shares in order to control the boards.

This is a bit more than just taking a stake in companies in order to give taxpayers an opportunity to share in the gains... this is basically nationalization without taking over the entire company.

So I guess I was wrong about where this was coming from. Too bad, since if the tech bros are right and this leads to the ultimate infinite money glitch, having a resource wealth fund that pays dividends would have been one way of softening the massive dislocation in labor allocation for both white and blue collar work.

Correct. Presumably if your investors don't like the idea of getting diluted by uncle sam, they'll cut off sales once you hit 199M a year.

You'd need to get tangible benefits for letting the government "buy in"... enough that your existing investors and share holding employees would be ok with crossing the 200M cutoff.

Probably a foreign held corporation in Ireland that owns all the IP and gets paid licensing revenue from all the sub 200M companies will serve as the controlling entity.

What's odd is you could accomplish something similar to Bernie's plan by funding AI startups and taking an equity stake. Upon IPO, you sell the stake and then take the money to go incubate more companies. The leftists complain about the massive imbalance of wealth, but are unwilling to go and take the risk that the VC funds are taking by backing a bunch of unproven companies that may never pay off.

That's not how engineers use AI agents any more. We don't just look at what it says — we have it prove that it's doing the right thing. We just look at the proof, so we don't have to look at all the details, nor blindly believe what they AI says. We also have adversarial reviews, which are typically more thorough (but less experience-based) than human reviews.

Dilution is preferable to paying cash taxes on unrealized gains - the other socialist/progressive "solution" to people being successful. And, one would hope that negotiations would get things closer to a reasonable percentage from 50%, like the 10% the US government took in Intel.

It aligns the interests of the government with the company - you can't pay dividends on a wealth fund based on equity stakes if you take actions (policy or otherwise) that tank the value of the stock.

If anything, having the government as a partner (preferably a silent one) can help boost the stock price. If those shares aren't trading, then they aren't impacting daily price discovery. The only impact is that if the company ever pays dividends, half of the dividends go to uncle sam.

I'm not a proponent of nationalizing companies, but for AI companies to hit max velocity for spend, they need every advantage they can get to clear red tape and public opposition out of the way.

From an October 15th Pew Research report:

https://www.pewresearch.org/gl...

"But many are worried about AIâ(TM)s effects on daily life. A median of 34% of adults say they are more concerned than excited about the increased use of AI, while 42% are equally concerned and excited. A median of 16% are more excited than concerned.

Concerns about AI are especially common in the United States, Italy, Australia, Brazil and Greece, where about half of adults say they are more concerned than excited. But as few as 16% in South Korea are mainly concerned about the prospect of AI in their lives."

Contrast this to Biden era view on AI - which was to legislate regulations and restrictions on development which most likely would have been only to the benefit of the largest players. Open source players in this space would remain unaffected, since the metric is 200M in sales.

That Bernie and Trump are talking similar language (US government taking a stake in AI companies) makes this at least a starting point in discussions. People talking about UBI without proposing a mechanism for financing UBI - this is one possible way of financing things.

He fired 100,000 government workers, putting many of them on government assistance for a while. That wasn't taking away people's money and prosperity?

He took political power away from millions. That's pretty much a zero-sum game right there. It's not just the wealth, it's using the wealth to influence the levers of power that control so many aspects of our lives.

Nevermind, I was reading the Ars Technica version of the article that leaves out the part where they take stock instead of cash under the 50% haircut, and are proposing to pay dividends based on that fund.

Strangely enough, I don't have any objections to this plan.

Either:

1. AI is a scam, in which case Bernie is proposing they rob the robbers before the public figures out that they're getting taken. Definitely a heist film.

2. AI is the real deal, in which case Bernie is skimming 50% off the top as part of their deal to let AI have their way with the American economy. Notice he's not promising that he won't came back later to take another 50% haircut.

I'm a little weirded out by the fact that you could also just take an non-voting equity stake in these companies, considering that their spending is powering the US economy. Yes, nationalization is bad, but getting in before the IPO sounds like a really smart idea if your goal is to maximize return the US taxpayer.

Yeah, it's funny how those deluded by Trump think/pretend that they're the sane ones.

> When people like you get your way, that's how failed states happen.

No, failed states happen because of corruption. Like the USA is experiencing now.

Wait, what?! Are you completely unaware of the Russian oligarchs?

Right, did you really expect Americans to elect a black woman?! We're in this situation because we have enough racists and misogynists that we're not able to elect a smart competent black woman over an exceptionally incompetent, corrupt buffoon. Anyone who says we're not a racist country is ignoring the plain facts — many would rather see the downfall of our nation than to hand over control to a black woman.

Right, sometimes it's about personal power instead of personal wealth. Corruption, either way.

You got it in one.

Private enterprise wants to come in and upgrade your infrastructure without you having to float bonds, and somehow this is a bad thing.

This reminds me of when the company that built the monorai for Disney offered to put in monorails for the County of Los Angeles at their cost - the funds to be later recouped in fares (five cents per head at the time.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

"In 1963, Alweg submitted a proposal to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors for a privately funded monorail system in the county. The plan included design, construction, and operation of the system at Alweg's financial risk, with construction costs to be recouped through fare revenue. The proposal was ultimately rejected. Some sources attribute the decision to opposition from automotive and petroleum industry interests, including Standard Oil of California and General Motors.[4][5] Author Ray Bradbury, a supporter of the proposal, later criticized the city's decision to develop a subway system instead.[6][7]"

There are legit criticisms, like datacenters not behaving like good baseload consumers (many system designs will to switch to internal power if grid power goes out of spec, causing grid fluctuations to get much worse), but these can be handled by mandating that they build mechanisms (like batteries) to take over base load during situations like that.

You have to wonder who is behind shit like this. Is it organic mass hysteria (possibly driven by algorithmic influence), or is it manufactured outrage in service of some hidden goal (aka some billionare *cough* *cough* *michael bloomberg*, or a state actor)?

They specifically outlined the trojan horse rationale for denying public contributions. Someone plays the long game by submitting patches and gets privileged access to the project and repository, then turns around and backdoors it on the behalf of a state actor.

Example:

https://www.atlanticcouncil.or...

"The XZ saga began when the original maintainer of XZ Utils was pressured by other contributor accounts into adding user JiaT75 as a maintainer of the project. JiaT75 had been contributing to the XZ Utils community since 2022. A group of accounts and JiaT75 questioned the original maintainerâ(TM)s ability to maintain the XZ Utils project and spent years convincing them to bring JiaT75 on board as an additional maintainer. Once JiaT75 was provided maintainer access, they replaced the original maintainerâ(TM)s contact information with their own on oss-fuzz, a project that scans open source projects for vulnerabilities. After further preparation, they issued commits for XZ Utils versions 5.6.0 and 5.6.1, implementing the backdoor into the code. This backdoor had the potential to infect Linux operating systems, but thanks to the keen eye and curiosity of a Microsoft engineer, it was discovered before causing widespread harm. "

"Christopher Robinson (he/him/his), Chairperson, OpenSSF Technical Advisory Council; Director of Security Communications, Intel

âoeThe attack itself is not novel; it strings together a series of social engineering/cyber-bullying tactics, and leverages embedding offline malicious files during the CI/CD stage of publication. What is unique is how well the attacker studied and exploited common community behaviors and norms to penetrate the project and take maintainership that could allow the later actions in secret.â "

So I interpret it as closing off one channel for attack, which isn't taking public pull requests, but shutting off public contributions entirely, and limiting the ecosystem to known, trusted entities only.

I suppose as long as they let you fork, someone can always create a derivative that accepts public contributions, and then they can take the risk of dealing with that particular risk.

I can't find the citation for it, but in at least one case, part of the reported allocation of water for datacenters was due to the water consumed during construction. I would consider this kind of consumption legit if called out as a temporary usage of water, but FUD if just assumed as part of the overall calculation of ongoing water demand.

As for creating/destroying water:

https://www.fwpcoa.org/content...

"Air cooling (water-free): Many smaller or older data centers rely on air conditioning and chilled air circulation to remove heat. These use mechanical chillers or heat exchangers and do not consume water for cooling (aside from minimal water for humidification). Air cooling is common in cooler climates or where water is scarce, but it can require more electricity to run compressors or fans.
Evaporative cooling (open-loop): A majority of large, modern data centers use water-based cooling for better energy efficiency. This often involves cooling towers or evaporative chillers: warm water absorbs heat from servers and is then cooled by evaporation in a tower. As water evaporates into the air, it carries away heat â" dramatically cutting the electrical power needed for cooling. The trade-off is high water consumption. Most big data centers today use some form of evaporative cooling because itâ(TM)s energy-efficient, especially in hot climates, but it directly uses water (often drawn from municipal supply).
Closed-loop water cooling: In closed-loop systems, water circulates in sealed pipes or coils that cool the servers without directly exposing water to air. Because the water isnâ(TM)t evaporated to the environment, losses are minimal â" itâ(TM)s mostly the same water recirculating (with some makeup water added occasionally). These systems can include water-cooled heat exchangers or liquid-to-liquid cooling loops. Closed-loop cooling can reduce freshwater use by up to 70% compared to traditional open evaporative methods. The downside is higher cost and complexity, but they are far more water-efficient since water isnâ(TM)t âoeburned offâ into the air."

"However, a growing number of data centers are now shifting to recycled water. Tech giants have begun partnering with utilities to use treated wastewater (effluent) for cooling instead of fresh drinking water. For instance, Google uses reclaimed or non-potable water at over 25% of its data center campuses (one notable example is its Douglas County, Georgia data center, which runs on recycled municipal wastewater). Amazon Web Services (AWS) announced in 2023 that 20 of its data centers are cooling with purified wastewater instead of potable water. After cycling through the cooling system, this water is sent back to the treatment plant to be cleaned and reused again. These initiatives leave more drinking-quality water for the community and exemplify the industryâ(TM)s trend toward âoestrategic water sourcing.â Still, as of today, reclaimed water use is the exception. Most data centers worldwide are still using fresh water for cooling, although this is slowly changing with new projects and local regulations."

So evaporative cooling "destroys" water. And using treated wastewater (pure enough to use for datacenter usage and probably irrigation, but still too ick for some people to drink directly - aka toilet to tap), if part of their investments were to purify even more water than the municipality was already processing, combined with closed loop usage could be considered "creating" water.

Your guess is as good as mine though, it all sounds like marketing hype in an attempt to combat FUD.