Much as I agree with you from a moral standpoint, from a legal standpoint it is not as cut and dried as you make it out to be.

If you want to make the argument that "data about you" is "your data" that's fine, but the presumption here is that it's the airline's data, and it is offering it freely (as in speech, not as in beer) to the government. Where is the fourth amendment implication? It is not your "house, person, papers, or effects," it is the airline's and they're happy to let the government sort through it.

Sigh. No it isn't. The airline is not a provider of medical services, it is not regulated by HIPAA.

While I agree that this is not something I want the government to be doing, what part of a database maintained by the airlines constitutes your person, house, papers, or effects? If the government demands access that would be one thing, but if the airlines say "hey, wanna buy our data?" and the government says "hell yeah" that is something else.

Is English not your first language?
The quote - from Epstein's own email - is that Trump was trying to stop it. Don't you know what words mean?

Take a breath.
I don't care about intra Republican politics, I'm glad the files are being released; I want them out unredacted. Isn't this a good thing?

Great example of the comment smegma I was talking about!

My kids were born in the 1990s and my youngest daughter was in her early 20s when she was talking to a cousin 10y younger than she. The cousin had asked about a sweatshirt she was wearing that had cursive text - nothing complicated, probably "dogs are cute" or somesuch - and my daughter AMAZED her by being able to read the script.

Then the cousin asked "It's cool that you can read that, can you speak it, too?"

Yeah, I'm not sure mandatory cursive classes are going to help at this point.

Genuine question.

We hear in semi annual oscillations about the predicted, imminent "death of the PC for gaming" and "death of the console"... When does this non news stop being interesting?

Most of these monthly payments don't charge interest they get their money from the stores similar to how credit cards work. However instead of a 3-4% back from the stores they are getting 6%+.
Stores are will to pay that extra amount because people who use these will purchase more items, and these monthly payment programs don't have the legal protections that credit card provide so as an example there is no charge back capability.

Apparently, "safeguards" mean "don't let the AI say something that hurts feels" rather than "don't let the AI act in a manner that is dangerous and unlawful." I say this because, apparently, Anthropic's systems have been leveraged by nation state actors for hacking campaigns (though details of this are minimal and read like marketing spiel about how awesome their tools are rather than giving information on what actually happened).

Agreed he's truly despicable. I'll also agree with dangerous as anyone who has that much money is dangerous by definition. There is nothing wrong with my understanding of ethics or principle. I also think SpaceX succeeds in spite of Musk and not because of him.

With all of that said, I fail to see how anyone's proclivities or politics play into whether or not a company they own will succeed at any given objective. I'd further argue that if you believe that someone is dangerous, you're fucking stupid if you pretend that they cannot achieve things that are clearly within their (demonstrated) capability to achieve, and the only thing you accomplish is convincing people they're less dangerous than they are.

But in that sense we're getting into semantic hairsplitting. "Annoying" != "dirty"
To your points:
* Noise of generators and cooling systems, the DC being built too close to existing homes, more of a zoning council fail but it happens as DC money can make the council turn a blind eye to the local residents desires.
Zoning issue, as I mentioned.

* Vibration, lots of big engines and such can create vibrations that travel thru the ground (or very low frequency) that can disturb sleep and such even if it doesn't measure on the sound meter.
Zoning issue, as I mentioned.

* Diesel exhaust if that's used for generators.
CLEARLY a Zoning issue, as I mentioned.

* Water supplies can be consumed (& denied to locals) or even "contaminated" (like being warmed too much for the local wildlife), or aquifers can be drained faster than they can replenish.
Not a zoning but pricing issue; I've been involved in commercial/industrial planning, and water consumption is certified; if it exceeds capacity, it shouldn't get a permit (zoning issue, basically) at all. Otherwise, it should be charged for what it takes; if the price is calculated accurately this shouldn't be an issue.
The warming of local aquifers and surface water is 100% a valid point though as I don't know of any regulatory system that comprehends/accommodates/costs this into the factor. Good point.

* Electricity as this article is about
Pricing issue. If it's slated to need X mwh, then it should be charged for it. If the local grid has to build capacity to accomodate, that's a planning issue and likely a surcharge for the major user(s). If this isn't happening, again, local regulatory issue.

* Dropping local property values of existing homes
If a business is properly zoned, compelled(!) to comply with local ordinances about noise, emissions, vibration, traffic, etc there's zero reason this would impact local home values.

* Taxation issues because cities want to bring the DC in and give tax abatements, but there are still local services required so the extra costs get passed on to others
The tax abatement issue is absolutely a genuine one; such arrangements HAVE TO ensure basic services are paid for, and that only the marginal 'profit' from such projects' taxation is in play. Most local councils have some level of corruption, unfortunately, and too few local residents give enough of a shit to make any change.

"The company naturally took a build now/ permit later approach to essentially building their own power plant, as one does."

I live in MN. We were building a coating plant here in the late 1990s and it involved a thermal system to burn away solvents that escaped from our coating process (we're a EU firm, and have been recycling this back into power for our dryers for years reducing solvent emissions to basically 0) so I was heavily involved with the MN PCA and EPA who (surprisingly) had no algorithms to comprehend such a system yet in the US. So I had a year or more of fairly deep engineering discussions with regulators.

TN certainly has its own rules but I don't understand how a company could have a "The company naturally took a build now/ permit later approach to essentially building their own power plant, as one does." Doesn't your example VERY SPECIFICALLY support my point that this isn't so much an issue about the data center but about the lax implementation of basic regulation and zoning limits that the could do so and even survive the regulatory consequence?

Ultimately /. will need to block Chinese ragebater ACs just to keep the smegma out of the comments.

I didn't say I disagree with it, but it illustrates the stupidity of your trying to make this about chauvinism.

I genuinely don't know. I don't have all the answers.
But when the literal best dirt the Dems can come up with is "Trump is mentioned!" even then the point isn't what they're trying to make it seem: ...yes, he's mentioned because he was telling them to STOP BEING PEDOS.
"In one of the emails, dated January 2019 and sent to columnist Michael Wolff, Epstein said of Trump: âoeOf course, he knew about the girls as he asked Ghislaine to stop.â"

https://www.theguardian.com/us...