Millions of books are dumpstered every day. MILLIONS. Ever go to a library used book sale? Ever notice that - in MOST cases - 75%+ aren't purchased, even at 50-cents a book?

Sure, some get donated but a lot of book donation places are filtering as they don't need a 100th set of Encyclopedias from 1981.
I know of at least a couple of organizations that fill 20' containers and send to some associated groups in Africa to provide books for kids, but "Morning Glory Milking Farm" as well as Chilton's 1999 Pontiac Minivan manual isn't going to make the cut there either. It costs $ to ship them and they don't have money to waste.
Largely...they get thrown away/pulped. For some reason I'd once noticed that a local library (part of a county-wide metro association) was dumpstering books. Like... a LOT of books - talking a half-full 5 yard dumpster EVERY WEEK. I'd look and there were dozens of heavy duty black garbage bags FULL of books, and not just shitty old ones, there were multiple copies of popular fiction titles, NEW periodicals, all sorts of good stuff. I recognized the dumps were clearly by section as one night several bags would be "history" for example. In the bags they were totally clean too.
I probably dumpster dived 1000 books over the better part of a year, before my wife drew the line bringing home 1-2 shopping bags (eventually i just left a heavy-duty recycling tub in my car for it...) every week. I'm a big reader but that's a lot.
This was a library in an extremely wealthy suburb of 50,000. So I called them and asked about it. IMMEDIATELY the library *insisted* they only threw away damaged books. When I provided pictures, they claimed they were moving to a new facility and someone was just being a little overzealous in their cull.
Their new building was - I shit you not - MAYBE 50 yards away.

Anyway, the point is, I am saddened by the loss of any book, but let's not cry fake tears over this just because it's AI and people are 'shocked' to find out that the public doesn't give much of a shit about books anymore. Because they don't.

It feels like the simple requirement of needing a warrant to search rather than "bored officer looking up his ex" would solve 99% of these issues.

Even if you live somewhere with good cops, they're still human beings and will often put themselves above duty.

Only the fear of consequences drilled into them during training followed by robust monitoring and security audits will keep it under control (note I didn't say 'prevent entirely').

The range and payload penalties will be enormous.

If you can build an enclosed habitat that can keep a population alive for 1000 years in deep space, you'd find it a lot easier to do the same on Earth. And if that's not an option, Mars, or the asteroid belt. Places where there are resources to exploit to resupply and repair, or even expand.

And that's before you think about how your destination is an entire alien biosphere - you might know the air, water temperature and gravity are all fine... but you won't have any idea if you can digest the locally available flora and fauna, if it'll be toxic, or if it'll be digesting you.

Interstellar colonization is for when your star is cold and all the rocks around it are used up.

'Years' is soft-peddling it. We lack the technology to reach the nearest star to the Sun in less than 80 years, and even that is so expensive and unlikely to succeed that we'd never fund it. A 49 light year trip would take 980 years to get there, and assuming nothing critical broke enroute, it's incredibly unlikely you'd successfully beam any useful data back.

We could eventually build a fusion drive and halve that time. There's still nothing at the end of the trip to justify the investment. Telescopes are the vastly superior tool.

And no, nano probes accelerated by giant laser to near light speed are not realistic. At all.

Maybe you're just committed to rage (look, it's Mr Social Media) but IT SEEMS like you're "too stupid" to see that I was very, very specifically criticizing the commenter in the story that complained "How many people does it take to run a data center after taking up all this property and all this land that could have been used for something else?" eg, that data centers don't provide satisfactory employees per area numbers (when that land likely was being used for agriculture, which is generally EVEN FEWER employees per area).

That IS a stupid take.
What's even stupider is misreading my comment as some sort of criticism about agriculture, which it wasn't even faintly.

L2READ, dipshit.

You should answer this question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Reporting doesn't really work. It will be weaponized to suppress competing content and the reporting mechanism will become untrustworthy.

I've work in technical industries, and they can't handle encryption.

lol wut? DCPs are usually heavily encrypted. Even the dumbest intern running their screening room could figure it out.

Let's make sure we make in the legal framework to ensure anyone hosting/building llms is held legal& financially liable for any damage they cause?

Wrong, it's a slight of hand. This is not about individual cameras, this is about the network that uses all cameras together to follow you no matter what you do, no matter where you go, people shouldn't have a government that follows their every step by using AI and networked devices. If this was about individual cameras you would have a point, it is not, it is unreasonable to allow a government to exist that creates a panopticon of this scale, citizens shouldn't feel like they are inside a prison and the warden is watching.

You know most agricultural work in the US DOESN'T require importation of menial workers, right?

According to grok by value, only 15-25% of farm production requires menial labor, eg migrant workers.
Robotics are likely to significantly reduce that.

My point was that it's just a silly take to say "look at all this land that could have been used for something else" (presumably employing more people) when in fact most of the large swathes of agri land in this country barely employ anyone.

It's like complaining about data centers "using up" 17bn gallons of water when golf courses take something north of 500bn gallons and not saying a word about that.

...is the legal framework that I can hand my logins and all digital accounts to my heirs and assigns upon my death.

I'm going to provide them all the passwords etc regardless but I'd very much like the legal framework to recognize this.

Honestly my biggest challenge is keeping track of all the logins and remembering to update "that document" when I make changes. It's another reason I refuse to (only) use biometric unlocks on devices. There are plenty of use cases I can imagine where I might need someone to unlock something and I'm not present.

How many people does it take to run a data center after taking up all this property and all this land that could have been used for something else?

You mean like farming, where hundreds or thousands of acres are only "worked" by a handful of people or less? I think there are scores of reasons not to cover the world in data centers better than "but they take up space".