I mean ... sure... how many universities maintaining golf courses are currently being built in the middle of bumfuck nowhere next to small country towns?

The stupid part about people claiming water use is a cancer from datacentres is the equally stupid people on the opposite side of the argument who use comments like "completely false". Any absolutionist on either side of the issue is an idiot. The people you criticise, and you. AI sucking up water that people need to survive is a topic that is situationally correct and situationally false. I'm sure you feel pleased that you found a case where it was false, but that doesn't make you smart, it makes you lucky. There very much are datacentre projects that are causing insane strain on local water resources, and if planners are doing their job, the local university (LOL) won't have a golf course in those places either.

Sure, if you ignore the rest of the sentence which mentioned what the water was used for you would come to that conclusion. Come on man, you got so far there were only 5 additional words after concrete to reach a full stop and for a civil project those words are very relevant.

False. The use of water for cooling and how the loop is designed is a more complex issue that depends greatly on local economics, regulations, and environment. But really your post is irrelevant because...

Ground has been broken. The site is under construction. At this point of any project not only has the cooling system been designed, it will have also been purchased, and permits have been agreed and applied for and very likely already granted. There's no scenario where someone is saying now it's closed loop only to change to open loop before it's finished other than that person flat out lying, and that lie would be easy to uncover.

I have a feeling this is the goal. Declare a policy that will take effect right after it is anticipated the next guy will reverse a policy. Pander to the current leadership while making sure this braindead fucking idea doesn't get off the ground.

Also, anything sounds big when you put it in gallons. Doesn't sound so big when you mention that's 92 acre feet, the amount used by less than 20 acres / 8 hectares of alfalfa per year. Or when you mention that a typical *closed loop* 1GW nuclear reactor uses 6-20 billion gallons of cooling water per year (once-through uses 200-500 billion gallons, though most of that is returned, whereas closed loop evaporates it)

I don't think it has anything to do with that. As soon as I saw the headline, my mind went "cohort study". And sure enough, yeah, it's a cohort study. Remember that big thing about how wine improves your health, and then it turned out to just be that people who drink wine tend to be wealthier and thus have better health outcomes? And also, the "sick quitter" effect, where people who are in worse health would tend to stop drinking, so you ended up with extra sick people in the non-wine group? Same sort of thing. This study says they're controlling for a wide range of factors, but I'd put money on it just being the same sort of spurious correlations.

That was my initial thought... I'd bet statistics would show laying on the beach in the Caribbean has oddly more benefit for non locals than for locals for similar reasons.

Indeed. People participating in the arts tend to be higher-income, with healthier diets and better access to healthcare.

Also, the causation may go the other way. Healthier people are more likely to get out and go to museums or galleries.

Cultural engagement and it's "lower" form, escapism, basically represent tribal social engagement and exploration of the unknown/new, you know, the things we previously evolved to be good at. That this sort of activity provides purpose, meaning and connection and thus educes stress totally makes sense.

I personally see and experience an amplified version of this in close embrace social dancing (massive health benefits, scientifically proven) and due to my diploma and experience in performing arts. It basically makes me 15-20 years younger than my peers.

I'm...curious...if Nadella's assessment of the board had to do with some deficiency in keeping minutes; or if he's just shocked into incomprehension by the idea that the board would fire you for anything aside from failing to make line go up or some really sordid sex thing that is going to reach public knowledge real soon.

For basically any employee "is lying snake who none of us can trust about anything he says" would seem like it does the job, especially with the fairly limited US requirements for firing people; so it's hard for me to see that as an obviously amateur move unless they were either chaotic in some visibly horrifying way about it; or he is just applying his own theory of what the board should and shouldn't fire you for (and to what, at least theoretically, is a nonprofit board that was supposed to be keeping the c-suite on-mission; not just appeasing the shareholders).

The engine is not a flywheel and doesn't generate gyroscopic forces.

The only motorbikes which have flywheels are explicitly those which do *not* require a driver to lean into corners and attempt to keep the bike upright. For example many touring bikes have small flywheels to smooth out engine performance, but it's small to the point of providing fuck all kinetic energy to the rider and no gyroscopic effects. Some dirt bikes have larger flywheels and they are aligned in an attempt to keep a bike stable and upright when wheels get sucked into grooves.

You're talking about different things for different purposes with different effects.

The kinetic energy stored here is in the motor pistons not in a weighted rotational mechanism. It is very VERY different from using a flywheel, the latter of which are not actively used in motorcycles for kinetic energy systems. In fact quite the opposite, some bikes have them to improve vertical stability - not racing bikes mind you because you don't want a system providing variable vertical force when you are heavily leaning into a corner.

You are right, seems like I mistranslated it.

Can you define the problem that fits into the Venn diagram of requiring this particular chip while also needing to run on Linux 7.2, and as you formulate your answer do so in a way that takes into account that 6.18 (LTS) will still support this thing first hand for another 2.5 years, and will continue to have backported support in distributions for years after that as well, so only include problems that will still exist in the 2030s.

Wrong question. It's no "how" about a modern kernel, it's "why" a modern kernel? What are you doing with your 486? Is it sitting in the corner humming away controlling the building AC, or are you live connected to the internet running some endpoint from a cloud connection?

Before we talk about using modern kernels on old hardware the question is why are we not using modern hardware for the purpose.

Obsolescence is a thing as well, when considering the idea of "it still works" you have to also ask what happens "if it stops working tomorrow".