They're just fine. Would nuzzle.

This "old boomer" follows Warren Buffett's advice: If you don't understand the business or the market, don't invest in it.

The part of AI that I do understand is the data center construction, utility equipment, air conditioning, etc. Once that stuff has been paid for and installed, I wouldn't touch the operation part of the equation with a 3.05 meter pole.

Not really. Think about how all those extra appendages might be used.

Compliance teams are just the government's full employment promise to liberal arts majors. You can either find them jobs in the administration. Or you could create a bunch of regulations, with reporting requirements. And companies will have to hire the staff to generate the requisite reports. The former salaries come out of the federal or state budgets. The latter cost the government bupkis.

True. And the grid is rapidly turning into a low trust environment. While it's true that some of the larger data center operators may be willing to put their money into power resources, many are not. Hoping that they can play the utilities against existing customers and get resources built for free*. So, having these existing customers take their revenue to go off and build their own pounds a stake in the heart of their scam: "We'll be here to buy your power. Trust me, bro."

*Utilities are basically in the business of trading long term capital financing for potential future, uncertain, short term revenue income. See WPPSS for what happens when predictions of furure revenue streams goes wrong.

... a taco truck at the center of our galaxy?

... someone yelled "Bingo!"

I think the PP understands well enough. Why can't data centers use a closed water loop to move heat and then a water to air radiator like a car does. Sure, it would be huge. But evaporative cooling has been designed around a water supply being free or really cheap. It isn't.

So let's all piss in Google's data center intake.

It's like the tires on my truck. Not terribly worn, but well over their expiration date. Nobody will touch them, even to check air pressure, because of the liability (and federal law). One could blow out on a weak spot.

I don't even want to know what a blowout at 17,200 mph will be like.

Muah hahaha!

ports aren't insecure, protocols are

True.

The people who block ports pointlessly just because they've been abused in the ancient past are idiots too.

Huh? Blocking inbound ports in which you don't actively host services or outbound ports in which you don't require traffic is just good security.

You will note that Europe isn't busy doing the same thing with Chinese electronics and software. That's because as brutal a regime as China is they are at least predictable.

Agreed, although countries should also be questioning the predictability of China, especially with regards to their not-so-secret ambitions over Taiwan.

I don't think people really can process just how crazy it is that the president of the United States threatened to seize Greenland by force and that the only reason he stopped is that Congress told him no

In his second term, Trump has shown absolutely no regard for Congress. For the most part, he does whatever he wants and Congress just lets it happen. I'm still not certain what his intent was for disclosing ambitions over Greenland, but I narrow it down to one of two things: he was using it as a bombastic distraction from the fuckery he was actively engaged in at the time, or he does sincerely maintain those ambitions but he's starting with less controversial targets for Americans (Venezuela, Iran, Cuba) before he gets around to countries with more sympathetic ties to the U.S., such as Greenland and Canada.

Yes, it will make the economy more efficient. And just imagine how efficient the economy would become if we managed to eliminate the need for all spending!

Keep in mind that the "American Century" included nuclear nonproliferation. Which, to be sure, was already on life support. But it's dead now. We're all going to miss that.

This is especially true after the latest attack on Iran. The excuse the U.S. gave for that attack was to prevent Iran from creating a nuclear weapon (despite the fact that we reportedly "obliterated" their nuclear program less than a year ago). The irony is that the attack will likely strengthen the Iranians' resolve to develop a nuclear weapon since the U.S. does not attack nations with nuclear capabilities. And other countries that aspire to become nuclear powers are probably looking at that with similar sentiments.