Not Zionists, but rather Nazis.

You're a total fucking moron. Data centers are government agencies because companies get in bed with politicians to cram them down our throats. Jeezes, wake up. Errrr....but don't let your buddies see you waking up or they'll accuse you of being woke and thus gay, communist, black, feminist, etc. They may even take away your magic decoder ring.

This just in, the alleged administration has polished an Executive Order making space data centers coal powered.

While based in San Francisco, they have offices all over the world. If I were them, I'd be threatening to leave the U.S. and not make an idle threat.

Nope, OpenAI. And I suspect he's got a "deal" with Sam Altman for a bit-o-graft under the table. In return, el Bunko will cram data centers down Americans' throats.

Oh cool, good plan, we now blame it all on the native Americans! ;-)

Not sure what you think those have to do with anything. I know plenty of women who've had children and are not (nor have been) married.

Given how engineering is a registered profession in many places in the world, I'd like to see gain its professional accreditation.

Pretty much. What motivates me to work is the outcome of it all. The money is just the cherry on top. Look at what Gwenn said earlier today: "Making history, again." Now that's a job worth doing.

This is why I don't understand socialists. Their objective, or endgame, is the job itself, or just the money. Not the product, nor the impact.

It's always sunny in space.

Property doesn't yield dividends, it's a tangible good that you make use of. Property valuations also aren't anywhere near as speculative, hence they tend to be below market value. Property is also illiquid.

Picture this: Property valuations so high based on speculation that the taxes are so high that you can't possibly have the cash to cover it, so you're forced to sell the house below the speculated value that you're being taxed on, which begets income if it appreciated, which begets more income tax (this is exactly what California's wealth tax proposal does.) Not only is it a tax on money that you don't have, it's really a tax on stored value, or a tax on money, except this money doesn't actually exist.

That's wealth tax.

Elon's companies already do exactly this. The guy has literally minted new millionaires by the tens of thousands. And that's only counting his employees, not shareholders. Some of them have since gone on to pay it forward, while living more comfortably in the process. Who would have thought? Success breeds success. Prosperity breeds prosperity.

Did I also mention that this is already the rule rather than the exception for US companies?

https://www.naspp.com/blog/mov...

Because in other places, it's definitely not. Europe barely does it at all, partly because regulation makes it impractical if not impossible. Outside the US and Europe, this is basically unheard of.

https://www.efesonline.org/Ann...

Admittedly, part of the reason for that is stock markets outside the US are generally more volatile, sometimes much more, so workers outside the US probably won't accept it even if offered.

Is that so? Well, under your own rules, this wouldn't have been possible to begin with. At all. Here are a few facts for you to digest:

At the time Elon founded SpaceX, his net worth was close to $200M, which in today's money is much closer to $400M. Ebay bought out paypal, which converted it to cash, and he then invested his money into both Tesla and SpaceX. So effectively, you're arguing that he should have only been allowed to have right around $25M at that time, which wouldn't have been nearly enough to invest in just one of those, let alone both. But let's be generous and leave him with $100M at the time, which you would have been coming here complaining loudly about, as you are now:

SpaceX's first 3 launches failed. He then had to put even more money into it, basically everything, saving it from bankruptcy, as well as soliciting new investors to fund two more launches. Literally putting everything he had into it twice. He had to borrow money from friends to pay his rent, literally "living paycheck to paycheck", and over a decade before these companies ever saw a dime in profit. Meanwhile, your idea here is "he had too much money, the only fair thing to do would have been to liquidate both companies and give it to the government." The same government, by the way, which still can't figure out how to balance a budget. And for at least two years after the Ukraine invasion, the world would still have been paying Russia for human spaceflight. Probably longer, actually, because of Boeing's botched ISS mission. And worse, the government forfeited a lot of tax revenue that would have come from his future employees. Shit, Elon himself has already spent in the tens of billions.

And for what? Because it just pisses you off that somebody has more than $100M, so the government had to pluck away $100M at the time? And what do you suppose that would have been spent on that could have possibly yielded even a shitty return, let alone a better return?

Here's something that socialists won't accept, but has been very conclusively proven time and time again: Without property rights, there cannot be prosperity. That includes equity. The very equity you want to take away if somebody has "too much". In other words, your goal is to kneecap success that otherwise begets more success. Your goal, thus, is to kneecap prosperity, even if you don't -- or can't -- understand why.

So...In a word? Bullshit. In fact, fuck your ideology to be honest. In the ass. Sideways. When people like you get your way, that's how failed states happen. Every. Single. Time. Without fail. We've seen exactly this, repeatedly, with Venezuela being the most recent example. If you find the US so oppressive because too many people with more than $100M live in it, then quite honestly, nobody is making you stay. There are plenty of countries that don't have anywhere near the number of billionaires that the US does that you can choose from. The only one I can think of that probably has about zero of them is Somalia. And if you don't live in the US, then what do you have to complain about?

Further reading: What happened in France when Francois Hollande had his 75% tax that he built his election campaign around and ultimately had to lobby against?
Hint: It has to do with the Laffer curve.

Because of the significantly higher power and water rates they won't be paying, or because of the half-dozen relatively low-paying jobs that won't be created?

The advocacy groups didn’t stop datacenters from getting built. Reality did. Altogether, the big companies had announced enough data center building to consume 10 times the total planetary electricity generation, and also use up the next 150 years of semiconductor production. The math and physics literally didn’t work. Only a sliver of them can get built. The rest are vapor. It’s like Meta assuming that it’ll command every ad dollar on the planet, or a memecoin valuing itself at “a HUnDREd tRIlliOn doLlARz”. Just cause someone says it, doesn’t make it reality.

The anti-datacenter movement is full of people who need something shiny and new to be outraged about, and the politicians pander to it because they can pass laws banning the construction of datacenters that were never gonna be constructed anyways,

Replacing worthless people with worthless software that boils the oceans. It's not exactly progress, more of a lateral move on the stupidity track of humanity.