Robots are coming no matter what. There's no accelerating it anymore than it can be. The ruling class, the Epstein class is tired of being dependent on employees and they don't give a rats buttered behind what it costs. The only thing stopping them from automating everything is they haven't quite worked out how to do it yet. Cost is not a factor anymore. They don't want you. They don't want you as a consumer and they especially don't want you as an employee.

The Old Kings had a Divine right. The Epstein class wants that back.

Ai and robots are coming no matter what because the ruling class doesn't like being dependent on us filthy filthy consumers and employees.

They will spend any amount of money to eliminate you from the economy. And we gave them all the money because of sentiments like yours.

I get that you are trolling because it's fun but the thing is they are coming for you and all of us. The sooner you come to terms with that the better.

Assuming you're not ancient Boomer trash. In which case you get to die leaving everybody else to deal with the mess you made. I'm not exactly happy with older Gen x either. They gave us war in Iran along with the help of the boomers...

I have known several people that got upset when minimum wage went up because it made it feel like they were earning less money...

People are dumb. Really dumb.

Attacking nuclear facilities is at least moderately rational. Various countries have done that half a dozen times over the past few years. Attacking drone manufacturing and storage might also be reasonable.

But...

What does an illegal decapitation attack have to do with nukes? Do you think the new supreme leader is going to somehow be more rational than the last one? There is a fundamental difference between going after clear military targets to prevent Iran from developing weapons that threaten their neighbors and going after civilian and government targets.

No, they will keep doing this until they are a nuclear power. They've seen what denuclearization did for Ukraine, and it's hard to argue with their logic. Having nuclear weapons is a strong deterrent to invaders, who realize that the response could be swift and devastating at a scale that countries never recover from.

It's unclear what other things they will do at that point. We can only speculate. Mind you, I don't like the idea of a nuclear-armed Iran, but again, I see no evidence that anything happening over there right now is going to change anything, or even delay it enough to matter.

Is anything that the U.S. government is doing right now going to change that reality? The way you prevent them from laying mines is the same way that you prevent oil from leaving Iran — bombing ships the second they leave the harbor. If you're not willing to start with a full air and naval blockade, you've already failed, and the only thing continuing the war can do is increase the number of ways that you've failed.

My AI says there aren't enough em dashes, so you're probably both wrong.

At 3 A.M.? Probably. At 3 P.M.? Unlikely.

Most of what makes neighborhood streets dangerous is pedestrians. After dark, this concern goes way down. At some point, it becomes effectively zero, and the only thing increasing the risk is the number of driveway entrances, and in particular, blind driveway entrances.

And, of course, the presence of small children who behave erratically. In general, you should drive those speeds whenever you see evidence that small children are playing or are likely to be playing anyway, e.g. when driving past parks before sunset, when you see small children walking down the sidewalk while tossing a ball back and forth, etc.

And when there's no evidence of children, it doesn't make sense to slow down nearly as much.

Cyclists and pedestrians are also a big risk. They often behave in unpredictable ways. Also, if you pull out in front of cyclists, this is a very bad thing. But all of those factors are also highly timing-dependent. When there are no cyclists nearby, a road can be 45 MPH, but when cyclists are nearby, you need to slow down. Drivers need to have the situational awareness to realize that driving at the speed limit is not always safe, because the alternative is for the speed limits to be set so low that they are always safe, which results in miserably slow roads.

I've heard of neighborhoods pushing for 5 MPH (8 KPH) speed limits. When cyclists and even some pedestrians would be ticketed for exceeding the speed limit, you're doing it wrong. Even at 15MPH, there's only a 9% chance of an accident seriously hurting a pedestrian even if you don't slow down at all, so the benefit would only come from drivers who are completely not paying attention, and would likely be cancelled out by a higher number of drivers zoning out and not paying attention, in which case the chances of pulling out in front of a cyclist (who realistically won't be going that slowly) goes up. No free lunch. But that doesn't keep people who don't understand statistics from saying "If 25 (residential default) is good, 5 is better."

That's why they call it operation Epstein Fury. Also if we can finagle a second 9/11 out of this then I think we can get Trump a third term

Municipalities will just pass laws or constitutional amendments to get around the robot problem. If they have to they will sneak it past voters during a special election or a midterm with a bunch of scary propaganda. If all else really fails and they can't ram it through with the current legislative framework they will just change the laws and/or pack the courts.

America is a borderline lawless country where might makes right and money is all that matters. We are one bad election away from just straight up Soviet style government. We let the top have too much money. The last election Elon Musk didn't like the way it was going and he just casually dropped a quarter billion dollars on his preferred candidate. You just can't deal with that.

If you pay attention to where they put these it's always in poor neighborhoods. You never see them in the rich neighborhoods because if they put them there well to do people have the time to lobby and get them removed or made illegal.

But rich people also don't like paying taxes. But they do like having services. So they find ways, like speeding cameras, to make sure that poor people pay through the nose so they don't have to.

It's the same way for the suburbs. Seriously Google it. The suburbs are completely unsustainable without the high population density inner City even though the inner cities are typically full of poor people. Middle class and well to do people leave the inner cities to poverty but they extract money from them. Because of the much higher population density they can get away with that.

It's going to be fun in a few years because we're gradually collapsing the entire economy and the suburbs are going to go with it. They cannot without subsidies afford their roads and police and fire departments and schools and whatnot. Even with the higher incomes they just don't have the population density for it.

And it's going to get real as the tax base collapses and we can't afford police anymore. You are already seeing some of the smaller towns and cities having to shut down their police and sheriffs because they're just isn't enough money and the smaller towns full of poor rural folk don't get to pick the pockets of the inner city the same way.

But what I think is really going on is dodgy attorneys have been putting fake citations in their briefings for centuries and we are hearing about it because they're using AI to generate the fake citations instead of just making them up on the spot like they used to. I suspect judges and defense attorneys are scrutinizing citations more too because they've seen the stories about AI.

But I do think it would be naive to believe that given how skeezy attorneys can be that they haven't been feeling their portfilings with bullshit long before AI slop was a thing

In theory, sure. In practice, the FTC regulates things like this about as well as the CPUC regulates electric rates. Regulatory capture and bending to industry pressure has become the default at this point. Right to repair laws are really the only solution. Such laws distribute the enforcement responsibility by potentially enabling random annoyed DAs to prosecute or class-action attorneys to sue, depending on whether they are written as civil or criminal law.

This reasoning is flawed. The same logic could easily be used to justify genocide. When I read your post, I read it as:

"You've killed 5% of [insert group of people]. Do you really want to stop now? Because if you do, the ones who are left will hate you for the rest of your lives, and will find ways to attack you for decades. The only reasonable choice is to nuke the entire country."

Because literally, you could justify turning Iran to glass with your same logic. This is why decent human beings do not even consider starting a war without a concrete strategy, including:

• goals that they hope to achieve
• exit criteria (both for a successful exit and a failure contingency exit)

Regardless, criticizing the U.S. going into the war in the first place is not letting the current government of Iran win. Hell, insisting that the U.S. exit the war is not letting the government of Iran win. Their country took a lot of damage, and it will take years to rebuild. At best, it would be a draw.

On orders from the elected hacks, with justification from the elected hacks, and exit criteria specified by the elected hacks, assuming it has been specified at all.

Unclear. What is clear is that if China decides to go to war with the world, their economic output will go away, so they have a lot to lose by doing so. Russia and Iran have every excuse to be abusive neighbors, because they have nothing to lose, and this is the fault of decades of failed foreign policy by the United States.

The U.S. is going after Russia? Seems like this war is creating a huge surplus of oil revenue for Russia, now that the entire Middle East is cut off from the rest of the world. It is making Iran weaker and Russia stronger. At best, it's a draw, but more likely, it's a huge mistake.

One would hope that the U.S. is going after Iran's drone factories, which does hurt Russia a little bit, particularly in their war against Ukraine, but given that this is likely to basically erase all of the consequences of Russia starting that war with Ukraine, not to mention massively damaging the relationship between the U.S. and its NATO allies, effectively making Russia *massively* more powerful on the world stage than it was before this disastrously incompetent war began, it's hard to see this war as having any meaningful upside.

Nobody ever thought it did.

Not going to happen. TSMC is building factories in other parts of the world. Lots of manufacturing happens in other parts of the world. If China invades Taiwan, TSMC will go scorched earth. The factories will be leveled, the machinery destroyed, and the world will go on. China gains nothing from that strategy other than control over a small amount of land that has basicallyl bombed itself back to agrarian levels of modernity.

For now. See above, though. They're going to make out like bandits because of this war with Iran. Instead of the U.S. helping Russia rebuild after a defeat, the U.S. is letting Russia basically win and keep the spoils. This is quite problematic at multiple levels, at least in the medium to long term.

Would be nice if it worked that way, but I think it is way more likely that Russia, enriched by all this oil revenue, will buy Chinese-made weapons and use them to make the lives of everyone around them miserable.

Sure, but only if it is planned competently. When you're bombing girls' schools and music schools and running out of actual military targets, while not planning ahead with enough air cover to prevent Iran's ships from planing mines in the Strait of Hormuz, you've taken what could have been a catastrophe in 5 years and turned it into a different catastrophe right now.

From my perspective, this is the most botched U.S. military action since Vietnam, planning-wise, and the only thing preventing it from turning into another Vietnam is the lack of troops on the ground. Start sending in ground troops as is currently rumored, and the outcome could be grim.

They know that critical infrastructure *must* be repaired, and want exclusivity over those repairs so that they can profit unreasonably. As you said they're going to make frivolous claims that you might buy counterfeit parts made by some fake parts manufacturer in China or whatever.

The problem with any argument they come up with is that most repairs don't involve motherboards or other components that could realistically have compromised firmware, but rather power supplies, RAM, and storage. (And yeah, storage could have firmware, but probably not firmware that could plausibly result in any sort of remote compromise or anything similarly interesting.)

So there's no plausible rational reason for this weakening of the original law, beyond "IBM and Cisco paid a lot of money to lawmakers so that they could continue to get their mandatory handouts."

The way I see it, this is literally a bill whose sole possible outcome is increasing the cost of providing Internet service to the people of Colorado. If you vote for this bill, you're voting to raise everyone's Internet service costs, with no actual proven benefit.

This bill is trash, and anyone who votes for it should be voted out. It's that simple. Vote accordingly.

Yeah, but that doesn't mean they're ordering so far ahead that they don't have electrical connection approval for the building. Approval for connecting to the grid should happen before they even break ground for the building, after whcih it takes anywhere from one to three years *after* they break ground before the data center opens.

It can take a year or more just to get the high-kVA transformers for the building, which are often built on demand when ordered, not built and warehoused ahead of time. And it can take months to years for the power company to run new high tension lines to the site, depending on power availability. And so on. All that stuff has to be nailed down before you break ground, or else you might end up with a building that you can never light up. They wouldn't just be risking the hardware going out of date. They'd be risking dumping millions into a useless building that nobody wants.

So the only way power connections should be a problem is if they are so clueless about the way the world works that they don't get a will-serve letter from the power capacity with the projected capacity needs before brekaing ground. I wouldn't even be willing to risk building a *house* without a will-serve letter, much less a multi-million-dollar data center.

If they're even slightly competent, they'll have a hard date for when the power company can get power to the site, and that will happen in parallel with the permitting process, so that by the time the permits are available, they have a power guarantee. If they don't have that power guarantee by the time the permit process is finished, they should hold construction until they have it. And their construction plan should include dates for when building transformers have to be ordered to get them there by the time they're ready to light up the building. And so on.

I'm not saying there aren't incompetent fly-by-night companies that try to build data centers without any clue how to do it and end up getting burned, but I would hope that these are the exception, rather than the rule. If you're spending that kind of money, I'd expect you to have your ducks in a row.

Assuming the bubble bursts, then probably. Actually, that will probably happen no matter what, because when technology makes a big leap, there will still be outstanding orders for old tech, many of which will be too late to cancel.

How do you build a data center without plans for cooling or power? The surrounding area won't ever build chillers for you, and you have to allocate ground space for the infrastructure for all of that stuff. What it sounds like you're talking about are idiots who think they know how to build a data center, using other people's money, and getting burned. It's 1990s startup culture all over again. And I really don't care about them. They'll all probably go under anyway, because they don't have a viable plan to execute.

I highly doubt this represents a large percentage of data center construction. You'd pretty much have to have never tried to build a data center before and never worked in a data center and never even taken a tour of a data center to make those sorts of rookie mistakes.

Unless the companies are completely incompetent, they aren't having the processors manufactured until they have a plan for bringing the building online, including power delivery.

Everything else in the data center is pretty much the same no matter what hardware you put in the racks. You still need floors, walls, and a ceiling or roof. You still need places for cables to go between racks (either above or below). The floors still need to be built to handle high static weight loads where the racks are. You still need power infrastructure. You still need cooling infrastructure. And so on.