Is this what Claude told you to put in your comment?

He said, while failing to understand that it's for controlling our use of our computers. Eyeroll all day.

If the user has no control over it, then it's for the control of the user.

The idea as presented as being in the user's benefit is that the user can control it, but applications cannot.

Is it holding it between the index and middle fingers? "Got your gene! I got your gene!"

This version has a dumber headline, so it's like a whole new story! Three people didn't like it!

Yeah that's some old shit. Anyone look at the case enough to know what the evidence was? Was it just quantity or was it packaged?

Oh look, it's the hipster maggot come along to tell us all how great slavery was.

No, it's reasonable. It's not safe.

The other part of that is that you're not necessarily doing the same equation, they may be solving for something something different.

The US has been oligarchic and authoritarian all along, and has behaved towards some other nations much like a fascist nation would do, but in general has not subjected the general citizenry to full blown fascism. It's been horrible to everyone other than landed white males all along, though.

What? Presumably are what? No one can hear you over your cowardice.

If you can recognize that, then you should be able to do the math and figure out why it won't work. A quick napkin-based computation is sufficient. If I can do it, you can do it.

If we had reasonable regulations then a data center could go anywhere and not be a problem, but since we don't, they can only go into unpopulated places with lots of water and power without causing harm. Normal DCs can just go into ordinary commercial zones because they use, while elevated, not completely obscene amounts of power and therefore water. And to return to the topic, this illustrates why AI DCs don't make sense in space, because cooling is harder in space than it is here.

While in general, I agree with your sentiment, you mentioning the Dunning-Kruger effect is not appropriate here. Dunning and Kruger (1999) does not claim incompetent people would consider themselves above the experts. It's just that incompetent people do no consider themselves as incompetent as they really are, and competent people don't understand how far above the laymen their knowledge is. But both would agree, that the expert knows more about the topic than the layman, and both would sort themselves in the right categories.

You could consider the effect of Dunning and Kruger (1999) as a "mental regression to the mean".

This seems essentially sane if they have money to burn...

They read too much sci-fi, not enough science fact, or both.

As we used to say in the security profession, the weakest link is not the software, or the hardware, it's always the wetware.

Well, you know, D-K... they don't know what survivor bias is.

They are sure they are smart because they got money, and don't understand that even if they did make an intelligent investment, there was a luck component.