Just imagine, if you could be taxed more for unproductive infrastructure. Everything in the world would be solved, if you would just pay everything to the government, and they could re-distribute all of your income to others.

The entire reason why industrialization has delivered the promises of socialism, while socialism brought mass scarcity everywhere, is that productive activity generates resources that can be spent elsewhere.

Meanwhile taking more and more from existing industries, only to fund unproductive things (i.e. electric lines that don't allow for more production to offset their costs) improvershes everyone. It's why PRC has as many problems with useless infrastructure they built as they do. It's why their property market collapsed a few years ago.

Loudoun county is a well known example. There are several others.

https://progresschamber.org/in...

This isn't really new or interesting. If you manage to get a lot of new industry in, you can tax that industry instead of your residents. Meaning you can fund more services, while taking less tax.

It all depends on who you are optimizing for.

• Parents with kids would do better on standard time, because they have to take their kids to school before work.
• Everyone else with a 9-to-5 job may do better on DST, assuming a short commute distance, because sunrise at 7:20 instead of 8:20 just adds useless time before the morning commute, while sundown at 5:53 means driving home before dark.

There is no one correct answer, because which one fits your circadian rhythms better depends entirely on what time you wake up.

Air quality collapses. That's a new one. What exactly do they do to the air?

Gas turbines? Water vapor poisons the air now? Man, people living near oceans must be all dying from water vapor poisoning. Reminder that methane burns into H2O and CO2.

Chinabots are going really hard nowadays.

This is the other PRC sponsored talking point that is nonsensical. "They bring noise".

They have fans pointed upwards, and usually shielded with noise shields on the sides. As a result they emit far less noise than most industrial applications. Whatever noise they emit usually travels upwards, not sideways.

But crazy witch with 50 cats says that noise killed her latest litter. Tiktok said so, so it must be true.

Yeah, anti-datacenter propaganda really worked well in some places. Not many, but some.

In real world, data centers are currently reviving a lot of remote towns. Dilapidated infrastructure? They will rebuild it because they need it to work. Insufficient infrastructure? They'll finance the build out. Everything already fine? They will pay enough taxes to cut residents' tax bills by a significant chunk.

It's why the propaganda is focusing mainly on a handful of cases of corruption (i.e. officials getting bribed to offer better terms than necessary), as well as just blatant lying (oh my god they consume so much water, we're going to run out).

Mostly what is needed is for more small towns to realize that they can rebuild a lot of dilapidated infrastructure and lower property taxes if they make a good deal with a data center. Not to mention minor perks like fast potential to pull fast broadband access in a rural town, or build something that will be productive for a long time, like a new power plant.

These satellites are intended to go into an orbit that passes overheat only at sunrise and sunset (the dawn/dusk orbit mentioned in the article). That's the only orbit that puts them in full sun all the time. Any other orbit would leave them in darkness half the time, which would eliminate the claimed advantage of putting them in orbit in the first place (solar energy 24 hours/day).

That means all these satellites will be spread out in a single ring around the earth, and that ring will pass overhead twice each day.

What would you replace it with? It's not really useful for much else.

Driving around on the back roads to avoid the fires it was handy to have AM to find out which roads were closed. Once you get into the back country there's not much else besides AM.

Lots of areas without cell coverage or Starlink coverage, I just have to go a mile down the road to lose the last bar on the phone and there's trees that will block Starlink.

When I was young, it was Herbert W. Armstrong. He did have an interesting take. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Having recently taken a trip on a major highway through the mountains and trying to stream, cell service is too spotty to depend on. Getting on to a minor highway is even worse, hours of only AM reception.

I believe you misspelled "slower than molasses in February".

If they break into a car and the police look at the footage on the dashcam and see that they've kept their license plate out of view, but they are able to cross-correlate it with other cameras and figure out the plate number, then figure out where they drove that car, where it ended up parked, who got out, where they went, etc., then it can make arrests possible where it was not possible previously, making it *massively* more likely to be able to solve the crime.

The problem becomes when it turns into "show us all the plates that were near that spot within a few minutes of that time", and thus a fishing expedition.

Nearly all countries have some level of restrictions on possessing guns, drugs, explosives, and various other things considered harmful. There also are many things that it's legal to possess, but only if they have certain safety features to prevent them from hurting you or other people. So what exactly is the position you're expressing?

- All those restrictions are bad, and none of them should exist?

- Restrictions on some things are ok, but AI shouldn't have any restrictions at all?

- Some restrictions on AI might be ok, but they'd create a slippery slope and lead to worse restrictions, and therefore we should oppose even reasonable restrictions?

- Something else?