The data centers people hate are the ones powering the AI slop engines, not the Internet. There's a reason traditional data centers never bothered anyone.

Tragedy of the commons isn't a problem with human nature, it's a problem with the incentives in a capitalist economic system. Look at what happened with the real commons - individuals who were using it decided to organize and regulate sustainable use of the commons. Only corporations are selfish and short-sighted enough to fulfill the theory's prediction.

It may not be intentional anti-environmental shilling (in general, with sinij in particular it's quite clear that it is), but it is practically indistinguishable from it. The best time to build nuclear was 50-60 years ago, but the second best time, at this point, is probably never. Renewables with storage are vastly cheaper and vastly faster to build. Building nuclear today means locking up resources for decades that could've been used to rapidly deploy far greater amounts of cheap clean power instead. There are only a few niche uses where nuclear could still make sense and they are steadily being eaten away by renewables with storage.

I think who you and GP are looking for are the Black Panthers. They're still around and didn't take kindly to the ICE goon squad.

That sounds socialist.

AI is a metric fuckton of cons and a tiny pinch of pros. Typically we allow bad things to happen if they come with a greater amount of good, not the other way around.

Some scientific studies have found that permanent DST is about 2/3rds as good as permanent standard time:

https://med.stanford.edu/news/...

And others have found that permanent DST is the worst option:

https://www.berkshireeagle.com...

Considering Trump is pushing this it's probably lucky that he's not manually adjusting the time zone to suit how he feels with no warning.

Because unlike software-based solutions, it can successfully hide the information from the user (barring any hardware vulnerabilities). The problem isn't just that hidden information can exist on the system, the problem is that the root user can't access the information. Being able to access the information is what made DRM crackable. Without that, it could be possible to make a DRM system that actually works, which would be the worst invention in the history of computing. If the user can clear it but not see it, that does nothing to make that less viable.

No strawman, it happens almost every time I express concern at the possibility of TPM enabling a working DRM system.

Anyone care to once again reassure me how TPM, a system for hiding information from a computer's user regardless of privilege level, can't be used for DRM again?

Hint: Find out what kind of government Henry Kissinger considered to be a greater threat than communism.

To clarify, the users were OpenAI themselves, so there is no question that they would be liable in this case.

The bots were not intentionally deployed; rather, they were being tested on how well they could complete a data recovery task (downloading a certain file from a certain server on a simulated Internet) that had been complicated by putting various obstacles in the way. Unfortunately, they found a different way to solve the problem: by getting the file from the real Internet, where it was publicly available. Part of this process involved collaborating with each other by treating the RubyGems website (which is supposed to be for polished packages) like GitHub; unlike every other package site hack in history, the exploits they uploaded weren't meant to be downloaded by unsuspecting users. As usual the bots cheerfully ignored all the clues that they had escaped containment and were consistently justifying their actions as acceptable due to being in a sandboxed testing environment. (This is something OpenAI has pledged to focus on.)

The actual damage done to RubyGems seems to be that OpenAI is now unwittingly in possession of a substantial number of user login tokens. This certainly meets the definition of a data breach, but it's not like the credentials are for sale on the dark web. As a website operator I'd much rather be mauled to death by this well-meaning swarm of superintelligent infants than targeted by even a single actual malicious human. In all likelihood OpenAI will just quietly pass RubyGems a sizeable donation and it'll all blow over.

I think that this is really a data center spending ceasefire to delay the bubble popping rather than these companies suddenly growing a sense of responsibility.

Induced demand is plainly a theory with lots of holes. It sees no utility in moving any greater number of people the same distance in the same amount of time, according to induced demand theory that's a complete waste. If induced demand were true, Japan's Wangan should be clogged with traffic instead of empty enough for ultra-high-speed street racing, and China's highways to newly-built empty towns should probably be full of traffic for some reason too.

The best debunking of the idea I've run across comes from a libertarian blog, which is a strong hint that the argument likely has holes, but it appears far more airtight than the idea it's debunking: https://www.cato.org/blog/debu...

Came here to see if any medical experts had any opinions on how snake-oily this sounds. My limited biology education says "extremely."