One doesn't "just" build a significant power plant; quick search says 2-5 years. Even then you have the problem of transmission infrastructure struggling to get the power to the right places.

* If you think people NIMBY a datacenter, power plants are worse.
* Lead time to permit and build a plant is nontrivial.
* Installing a new rail line or pipeline to get fuel to the plant is slow.

Now, market forces will tend to incentivize more power plant builds if there are economic gains to be had. However a new plant is not suddenly going to cause a reduction in prices -- have to pay off the plant.

Further, the power operators are possibly looking at the prospect of an 'ai bubble' such that they don't want to commit to 10 years of paying off new plants if the datacenters fail to materialize.

Based on a quick search, about 9,000 idle usb chargers would have to be unplugged to equate to a single GPU running a training task. The extra wear/tear on the outlets could eclipse the savings.

The only winning move (for either side) is the same as it was years ago: sincere diplomacy that works toward a permanent peace. The alternative is (essentially) a war of attrition, unless NATO is going to send a million troops to the front along with huge amounts of firepower, and if NATO was going to do that, it would have happened years ago. I suppose there is another alternative that is "unthinkable", but it's definitely there... *sigh*

But they do. Congresspeople from both parties who sit in closed door committees regularly engage in trading in the very industries they're (ostensibly) regulating. They've publicly admitted as much, and have said "So what, big deal. We have the right to make investments." So the issue isn't *catching* them, it's completely changing the system so that they can't do it as a "matter of course" with total impunity, and (I'm not holding my breath) holding the POTUS and other high-level officials to that same standard when it comes to trading immediately before/after geopolitical/military maneuvers.

If they then want to play games with blind trusts and sharing inside information with the people in charge of those trusts, they're free to commit crimes, like anyone else, if they think they're worth the risk, but if the SEC and other bodies actually had any power (or at least willingness) to hold them accountable, I'd imagine they'd at least think twice. I think most of them probably don't even see what they're doing as criminal. In their minds, they're just using their privileged positions to "strategic advantage". In a much less insane world, such actions would be *easily* traceable and would, at worst, result in public disgrace for those involved, and at best, doing hard time.

I realize that this may (at this point at least) be a pipe dream, since the whole bloody thing is stacked in favor of the people making the rules. It's always been that way, but nowadays it's approaching totality.

It will be interesting to see how the consumer refunds from businesses play out in cases where a bill had a specific 'tariff surcharge' as opposed to a generic price increase.

I bought a couple ~500 gig SSDs last year for upgrading some friends computers from Win10 to Linux. They were under $50. I had a couple more to do recently, and the exact same drives are over $100 now... It's probably the same *cause* as the RAM prices going up: datacenter hype, but it's not *because* of the RAM prices going up. I also am in the market for a new 8TB+ spinning rust drive, which I am kicking myself for not buying last year when they were ~$200. Now they're $400+.

I suppose one could reasonably argue that having a complete dataset makes it easier for the city to optimize its repair schedule; they can see that there is a cluster in a given area and schedule a crew to fix all of them in one go rather then piecemeal. Yes they could do that today, but this way there is more certainty about the amount of work to be done.

True enough, he's definitely in group #2. No question about that. Though he and people like him are kind of a special (pathological) case, straddling the line between #2 and #3, in that they seem to believe their own current bullshit, even when it directly contradicts their previous bullshit. Not that they actually care about ethical behavior at all, but I think at least some of the time, they're deluding themselves into thinking that they're "doing the right thing" -- and they (sort of) are, but only for themselves and their cronies -- they can't see outside that mindset at all. When they're harming people they think of as "losers", that doesn't even count for them, since they consider them not worthy of being treated fairly, which is almost worse than people who know full well all the time that they're villains pulling the wool over everyone's eyes and glorying in it. It's the difference between psychopaths and sociopaths. The psychopath literally thinks that the harm they cause isn't wrong, whereas the sociopath knows that it's wrong, and does it anyway. This is necessarily an oversimplification, since humans are infinitely complex creatures, but I think it distills down to something like that.

Also if it wasn't for group #3 running amok for the last several decades (or centuries, depending on where one wants to draw the line) he'd most likely still be doing reality TV shows, at best.

Yeah, on reflection, that statement I made is not a maybe/sort of, it's a no/not at all, as you say. I guess I was lazy and didn't think that through: what "Ethics" "is" ultimately gets defined by the people already in power who benefit most by defining their unethical behavior as actually ethical, and their opponents behavior, whether ethical or not, as unethical. In other words: "My bad behavior isn't bad, it's good, because I support the system as-it-is, which is good by definition, and hey, you're just complaining about 'a few bad apples', but your bad (and good) behavior is very bad because you're a dangerous and subversive [insert pejorative] and (more to the point): Hey! You don't even have standing here, go away." That is, I guess, more or less, the established order. "History is written by the victors" may be an oversimplification, but is nonetheless part of a larger, very real phenomenon.

Wasn't familiar with Brickman, thanks for sharing him.

Yeah, that's a definitely a thing, though for the most part, that's willful ignorance, since the foundation of ethics (an innate sense of fairness) is rooted in biology [citations widely available]. And "do onto others" isn't quantum physics.

Though you're right there is a fourth group that legitimately "doesn't understand what ethics even is", though I think that group is vanishingly small, and most people with an IQ above 50 that couldn't tell you what "ethics" is know what the "golden rule" is.

"Fake Kevin Bacon" definitely knows what ethics is and understands it perfectly well, he just chooses to engage in the opposite. He's a perfect example of someone in group #2.

"I think that lawyers who understand how to effectively and ethically use generative AI replace lawyers who don't,"

There are three kinds of people in the world:

1. Those who strive to behave ethically.
2. Those who don't give a damn about ethics at all and make no bones about it.
3. Those who pretend to behave ethically.

People who want to "do the right thing" aren't a problem. They sometimes make mistakes, but try to correct them. I think this is most people, like more than 80%.

People who don't give a damn aren't really a problem either, since in a world populated by mostly good people, they'll ultimately be shamed and marginalized or end up in jail.

People who can successfully project the illusion of behaving ethically when they have no intention in doing so are a HUGE problem. While there aren't a lot of them, they're highly concentrated in positions of power and hold most of the world's wealth.

Maybe in the field of law, you can sort of cancel out the pretenders over time, since everything is (ostensibly) reviewed, so maybe "AI" will help the unabashedly unethical lawyers to self-destruct, but everywhere else, the problem remains, and "AI" is mostly going to make them worse.

And stop calling ii "Generative" -- it doesn't generate anything -- at best, it's "reflective" in that it reflects back whatever was put into it. It's still GIGO.

The article doesn't make it clear if the drives containing the key failed (all of them), or if the decryption failed. Assuming the drives agree on the content of the encryption key, it sounds more likely that the *en*cryption key was incorrectly specified, or the vote data was corrupted such that it cannot be decrypted. Or perhaps someone swapped the data during transportation and this is a feature-not-bug.

What?!?! Are you a password-generating LLM that is irritated by my comment?

I set all my passwords to CorrectHorseBatteryStapler you insensitive Claude!