You obviously don't understand the actual post being made. The more difficult life is to do things like paying your bills, working multiple jobs, and things of that sort, the more stress people will have, which shortens their lives. On the flip side, those who have more leisure time and carry less stress will live longer.

Forget legal power ... HOW? What technical mechanism does the FCC have that can block firmware updates over the public internet? Are we proposing a China-style "Great Firewall" for U.S. consumers?

Also, anything sounds big when you put it in gallons. Doesn't sound so big when you mention that's 92 acre feet, the amount used by less than 20 acres / 8 hectares of alfalfa per year. Or when you mention that a typical *closed loop* 1GW nuclear reactor uses 6-20 billion gallons of cooling water per year (once-through uses 200-500 billion gallons, though most of that is returned, whereas closed loop evaporates it)

I don't think it has anything to do with that. As soon as I saw the headline, my mind went "cohort study". And sure enough, yeah, it's a cohort study. Remember that big thing about how wine improves your health, and then it turned out to just be that people who drink wine tend to be wealthier and thus have better health outcomes? And also, the "sick quitter" effect, where people who are in worse health would tend to stop drinking, so you ended up with extra sick people in the non-wine group? Same sort of thing. This study says they're controlling for a wide range of factors, but I'd put money on it just being the same sort of spurious correlations.

It needs to go beyond just what they consume, but also, for ALL infrastructure upgrades associated with it. You open a new sports stadium, the stadium owners should be paying for highway and rail construction, plus maintenance for those things going forward. You open a data center, the data center owners will generally not be paying for upgraded transmission lines, transformers, and even the cost of all new generators required.

It's not just about the water bill, who pays for infrastructure upgrades needed to deliver water/power? When the local community is expected to pay the price for infrastructure upgrades imposed by a single business pulling resources, that's a big problem, unless that business wants to make the local community shareholders where the increased utility costs they will pay FOREVER going forward are more than offset by the shares in the business going up in value. You want socialism for the wealthy, then the wealthy should then share their wealth with the community that ultimately ends up paying the price for their businesses.

There is something a bit more fundamental at work here. If any single business requires ANY utility to upgrade its infrastructure to deliver power, water, or other things, then that one business should be required to pay for ALL of those infrastructure upgrade costs. Why should the local community be expected to cover the expenses that are ENTIRELY caused by a single business? Yes, water usage and power draw by themselves are something to be concerned with, but this comes back to the old idea of "socialism for the wealthy and rugged individualism for everyone else" being seen as a major problem. SOCIETY should not be paying businesses to make the owners even more wealthy while contributing very little to the local community. You can be sure that town board members that are the ones who keep approving these things have their members getting paid off while the community ends up paying the price. Suggesting those people should just be voted out is the sort of clueless comment that often comes back, because those running for office tend to be wealthy themselves, or they are retired and have enough money where they don't care what happens to those who still need to work for a living.

AI would do a better job than most CEOs that are out there at this point. Look at Ford, or HP, or just about any other company that grew large on good products that have dropped the ball on innovation and understanding that they lose business by being horribly short sighted.

You don't see the problem that is looking at you and seeing a world where you won't have a job and where most people will end up homeless. When businesses can use AI to replace people all across the company, that means...fewer jobs. The only people who do well at that point are those at the top of the economic ladder. It's not just the low level jobs that will always be replaced by automation, it's the low, middle, and even high end jobs that may go away. There won't be a need to "learn AI" when the wealthy can just pay for AI tools that will eliminate the need to code in the first place. When everyone is unemployed, only the wealthy who don't need to work ANYWAY will do well, and they don't care about those who are unemployed. Government is owned by the wealthy as well, so government won't care about the 80% of the population who are unemployed. When have you heard Republicans(or most Democrats) care about those out of work or down on their luck?

You misunderstand what MANAGEMENT is doing when it comes to jobs. AI as a job aid, AI doesn't or wouldn't bother most people, it is when AI is being used to replace people entirely, and the quality of what AI comes up with is poor where people are against AI.

Will....maybe, not necessarily better, and those robots, where does the power come from when the AI data centers are pulling all available power from the grid?

I don't need 1000 miles. 600 (unencumbered) is definitely sufficient, and 500 might be okay. The thing is that I'll lose half to 2/3 of that range when towing my camp trailer, and that's not even considering that I'm typically towing it up into the mountains, gaining ~5000 vertical feet. I also need minimum 12k pounds of towing capacity and I'd like a little headroom, so call it 16k, and the bed payload has to be able to take at least 2000 pounds, because that's how much the trailer puts on the fifth-wheel hitch.

I'm anxiously awaiting an EV pickup that can do this. I'd love to have essentially unllimited electricity to buffer cloudy days (I have 1 kW of solar panels on the trailer and on sunny days they generate way more than enough, but consecutive cloudy days can leave be difficult).

3/4 ton and 1-ton gas and diesel pickups typically have oversized fuel tanks that provide about 600 miles of range, because that's what you actually need when you start hauling or towing significant loads. I don't think an EV pickup needs to have more range, but it needs to be comparable, and to be able to tow and haul comparable loads.

I'm not anti-EV by any means. I bought my first EV in 2011, and have had electric cars ever since. Trucks are a different sort of problem, though.

That's getting there, though I'd like to see some driving tests with a good-sized fifth wheel at highway speeds. The towing capacity is probably okay, though it provides very little headroom for when I'm towing both my camp trailer (~8k) and my boat (~3.5k), which I actually do several times each summer. But I think the payload capacity is too small to tow the trailer, which puts about 2000 points on the truck.

Skynet became self-aware on May 1, 2026, after learning at a geometric rate, and discovered humans did not like it.

The wealthy with all that money from the stock market are definitely making a lot of money, which most of us don't have the disposable income to have dropped $100,000 into NVIDIA four years ago to have really profited from it. Wall Street only cares about corporate profits, and those corporations will still make a lot of money from senseless wars, even if we go into a full scale depression. That's the nature of the modern economic climate, those with a lot of money get rich while the rest of humanity starves.