Datacenters don't need to use evaporative cooling. If municipalities choose to sell water for cheap enough that evaporative cooling costs less than alternatives, then this is on the municipalities.

Increase the cost for bulk water, and the datacenters will switch to closed loop, geothermal, whatever. If they generate the heat, they can pay for proper cooling.

Let's do some simple maths.

800 TB is 800,000,000 MB.
There are 24 * 30 *3600 seconds in a month.

800000000/(24*30*3600) = 308.642

That's 308 megabytes per second on average, which can easily be served via a 10 Gbps link/

A quick look on lowendtalk.com shows several VPS deals for less than $100 USD for 10 gigabit upstream with 100 TB of transfer. Using them and rounding up, you'd need four, and at $85 each in my example, that's $340.

It's cheaper for colocation because you're supplying the hardware. A quick look for providers that sell bulk upstream show unlimited gigabit and 2U for $60 a month. That's $240 a month for four machines, and that means you'd have all the storage you need, plus redundancy.

These are just examples to give an idea.

When your measurements are that precise, the exact speed of the clock through space matters. Changing altitude will change speed, as will changing latitude.

How do they all agree how many counts per second there should be, and at what location does this number work?

The case looks to be an updated Silverstone GD09 in beige instead of black. I wonder if they'll sell replacement faces.

I got a Silverstone GD09 for two reasons: one, because it takes a full sized ATX motherboard, and two, it's a rare horizontally sitting case. As a bonus, it fits perfectly in a rackmount case on a shelf. The fans mean my old AMD Bulldozer system stays cool, even when running all eight cores at 100%.

Love to see it :)

"who called the line of questioning and my tone "inappropriate," "egregious," and "disappointing""

This reminds me of a tantrum recently thrown by a particular political candidate.

What the heck? Running a fediverse server is trivial. What kind of company says, "We're SO BAD at tech that running a basic, simple server requires so much money, because we really suck at this Internet stuff, that we have to pivot away from doing that to save that money"?

This just gives the impression that Firefox is completely out of touch with tech and with the Internet. I'm embarrassed for them, but more than that, I'm scared for them. Imagine trusting a browser that has people running it that can't or won't allow the continuation of a service that'd literally be a rounding error of load on an existing server?

In the late '80s, when we started having 32 bit processors with MMUs that can run proper OSes, what'd Microsoft give us? Bill Gates will be remembered as the person who helped keep the computing world in the Dark Ages. Think of how many computers got dumped in to landfills because it financially benefitted Microsoft to make reinstallation difficult and licensing a nightmare. Think of how many computers and human-years of work were lost because Microsoft made more money with insecurity than with something that worked properly. Think of how they cultivated their ecosystem to waste, to extract revenue, and to encourage tribalism.

Bill Gates is a villain, and I am certain he knows how his role in computing will be remembered. I'm sure he wants to change that, but I don't think his philanthropy is going to save him from that.

I get that Slashdot uses the headlines that come from the source of a story, but anyone who thinks about it should realize that just because you can fix a problem by changing things in software, that does NOT necessarily mean that the issue itself is in software.

Intel is addressing the issue in microcode. That doesn't mean it's a "Software Bug". We're techies and should know better than to post this kind of lowest-common-denominator story.

Who are "Responsible Parties"? I self-host email, too, and can say with confidence that nothing goes missing without log entries.

If my servers reject email, it's for specific, deliberate reasons, such as servers which use names that don't exist in DNS (Outlook had random machines doing this for years). Email from my servers isn't rejected, but some platforms put certain messages in to "spam", but we can't fix the stupidity behind some of those filters. For instance, I've corresponded with certain people the same way, with the same attachments, for years, yet Google's filters change without reason and put the same exact messages in to "spam".

Even though these people pay for Google mail, they can't get a human to explain why this happened or how to not make it happen again. I suppose they're not paying enough.

I don't think Google has "Responsible Parties" or could even be considered to be reliable unless you're paying them a boatload of money.

If by "Red Hat's Information Risk and Security and Product Security teams have identified", you mean "Red Hat was informed", then sure. But Red Hat didn't identify anything except email in their inbox.

All these tech companies could cool their equipment without using water, but if it's slightly cheaper, they'll use water. This is why these companies need to be told what to do, not allowed to decide for themselves, when it comes to use of natural resources.

Honestly, though, server should be built to run in 100 (40C) ambient temperatures. It's really not that hard.

"Scientists Resort to Once-Unthinkable Solutions to Cool the Planet"

Scientists aren't resorting to once unthinkable solutions. That's written as present tense. They haven't done this. They're currently (present tense) PROPOSING "once unthinkable solutions".

We really should stop believing stupid headlines.