You know the old saying: believe half of what you read, none of what you hear, and the opposite of what you see on the internet.

You got it in one.

Private enterprise wants to come in and upgrade your infrastructure without you having to float bonds, and somehow this is a bad thing.

This reminds me of when the company that built the monorai for Disney offered to put in monorails for the County of Los Angeles at their cost - the funds to be later recouped in fares (five cents per head at the time.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

"In 1963, Alweg submitted a proposal to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors for a privately funded monorail system in the county. The plan included design, construction, and operation of the system at Alweg's financial risk, with construction costs to be recouped through fare revenue. The proposal was ultimately rejected. Some sources attribute the decision to opposition from automotive and petroleum industry interests, including Standard Oil of California and General Motors.[4][5] Author Ray Bradbury, a supporter of the proposal, later criticized the city's decision to develop a subway system instead.[6][7]"

There are legit criticisms, like datacenters not behaving like good baseload consumers (many system designs will to switch to internal power if grid power goes out of spec, causing grid fluctuations to get much worse), but these can be handled by mandating that they build mechanisms (like batteries) to take over base load during situations like that.

You have to wonder who is behind shit like this. Is it organic mass hysteria (possibly driven by algorithmic influence), or is it manufactured outrage in service of some hidden goal (aka some billionare *cough* *cough* *michael bloomberg*, or a state actor)?

Oh, AI will stay with us. After all, people use it to make porn - a sure indicator of a technology's success.

But I expect the current bubble to pop before it is adopted with more reasonable expectations. (Both of its capabilities and of its profitability.)

I'm daydreaming about the data center I'm going to buy at firesale prices after the bubble bursts.

I'll sell the computers for boat anchors, and use the building and the cooling system to create a year-round indoor ski resort.

You might want to read up on how current hybrid vehicles actually work, 'cause it seems you have more than one misconception going on.

I have. For instance, my latest vehicle is the Ford F-159 XLT,, the full-hybrid model of the F-series pickup truck line. Power train is:
  - 6 cylinder dual-turbo engine. (runs low power but approoximately doubles output when a lot is needed.)
  - 47 HP motor-generator "pancake" on the engine side of the ttransmission, to scavenge / return power to./from a 1.5 kWhr lithium battery.
  - 10-speed automatic transmission, working with the lithium battery;s main alternator to fine-tune match the engine/mogen to the current driving situation. Max power of engine plus hybrid mogen; 430 hp.
  - full four wheel drive.

So it's primarily a gas-engine power train with an electric-car motor mechanically coupled to the engine shaft. Many other hybrids, from the venerable prius onward, are similar, with plug-in variants having a big scavaging/peaking battery good for pure electric operation of tens of miles rather than a minute or so and a wall-powered charger added.

What I'm looking for is essentially a pure electric - totally electronic "transmission" consisting of alternator(s) between the batteries and the motor(s), plus a tiny engine-generator able to burn gas and feed some teens of KW of charging power into the batteries when running down the road or parked near it.
 

Do the Waymo batteries use one of the lithium chemistries including cobalt, or a non-cobalt chemistry such as lithium iron phosphate?

Cobalt chemistries have a higher power/weight and energy/weight ratio, which made them the go-to chemistries for vehicle batteries. But they also produce oxygen when the cells overheat, leading to an unextinguishable runaway fire hazard: A burning cell makes enough heat to ignite the adjacent cells, so the whole assembly of them goes. Bad enough when it's a car's worth, but a disaster if it's a shipping-container sized module of a utility energy storage site. (And even worse when the site is a building full of racks, which someone had "protected" from fire with water-spraying, equipment-shorting system, so the whole site burns up, as happened recently with one in California creating a toxic mess.)

That's why purpose-built stationary lithium energy systems use non-cobalt chemistries - heavier, but a shorted cell just kills itself without getting hot enough to light off its neighbors.

I want to see inexpensive plugin hybrids.

But not like the current ones, which are primarily an engine/tranny powertrain with a motor/generator + small battery for scavenging downhill/braking energy for later accelleration/uphill/cruise/power-boost.

I want ones that are primarily a battery-electric with a small aux engine-generator (say 15-20 HP range), big enough to power crusing with a bit left over for gradually charging. That would let you range-extend by the size of your gas tank plus fillups (i.e. indefinitely if only gas is available) or go from battery empty to back on the road in a couple tens of minutes.

The backup engine would only run at max-efficiency speed and could use an atkins-like cycle (see "liquid piston engine") to get the max power out of the fuel. Most operation would use power-grid charging (when available and cheaper than fuel).

They specifically outlined the trojan horse rationale for denying public contributions. Someone plays the long game by submitting patches and gets privileged access to the project and repository, then turns around and backdoors it on the behalf of a state actor.

Example:

https://www.atlanticcouncil.or...

"The XZ saga began when the original maintainer of XZ Utils was pressured by other contributor accounts into adding user JiaT75 as a maintainer of the project. JiaT75 had been contributing to the XZ Utils community since 2022. A group of accounts and JiaT75 questioned the original maintainerâ(TM)s ability to maintain the XZ Utils project and spent years convincing them to bring JiaT75 on board as an additional maintainer. Once JiaT75 was provided maintainer access, they replaced the original maintainerâ(TM)s contact information with their own on oss-fuzz, a project that scans open source projects for vulnerabilities. After further preparation, they issued commits for XZ Utils versions 5.6.0 and 5.6.1, implementing the backdoor into the code. This backdoor had the potential to infect Linux operating systems, but thanks to the keen eye and curiosity of a Microsoft engineer, it was discovered before causing widespread harm. "

"Christopher Robinson (he/him/his), Chairperson, OpenSSF Technical Advisory Council; Director of Security Communications, Intel

âoeThe attack itself is not novel; it strings together a series of social engineering/cyber-bullying tactics, and leverages embedding offline malicious files during the CI/CD stage of publication. What is unique is how well the attacker studied and exploited common community behaviors and norms to penetrate the project and take maintainership that could allow the later actions in secret.â "

So I interpret it as closing off one channel for attack, which isn't taking public pull requests, but shutting off public contributions entirely, and limiting the ecosystem to known, trusted entities only.

I suppose as long as they let you fork, someone can always create a derivative that accepts public contributions, and then they can take the risk of dealing with that particular risk.

I can't find the citation for it, but in at least one case, part of the reported allocation of water for datacenters was due to the water consumed during construction. I would consider this kind of consumption legit if called out as a temporary usage of water, but FUD if just assumed as part of the overall calculation of ongoing water demand.

As for creating/destroying water:

https://www.fwpcoa.org/content...

"Air cooling (water-free): Many smaller or older data centers rely on air conditioning and chilled air circulation to remove heat. These use mechanical chillers or heat exchangers and do not consume water for cooling (aside from minimal water for humidification). Air cooling is common in cooler climates or where water is scarce, but it can require more electricity to run compressors or fans.
Evaporative cooling (open-loop): A majority of large, modern data centers use water-based cooling for better energy efficiency. This often involves cooling towers or evaporative chillers: warm water absorbs heat from servers and is then cooled by evaporation in a tower. As water evaporates into the air, it carries away heat â" dramatically cutting the electrical power needed for cooling. The trade-off is high water consumption. Most big data centers today use some form of evaporative cooling because itâ(TM)s energy-efficient, especially in hot climates, but it directly uses water (often drawn from municipal supply).
Closed-loop water cooling: In closed-loop systems, water circulates in sealed pipes or coils that cool the servers without directly exposing water to air. Because the water isnâ(TM)t evaporated to the environment, losses are minimal â" itâ(TM)s mostly the same water recirculating (with some makeup water added occasionally). These systems can include water-cooled heat exchangers or liquid-to-liquid cooling loops. Closed-loop cooling can reduce freshwater use by up to 70% compared to traditional open evaporative methods. The downside is higher cost and complexity, but they are far more water-efficient since water isnâ(TM)t âoeburned offâ into the air."

"However, a growing number of data centers are now shifting to recycled water. Tech giants have begun partnering with utilities to use treated wastewater (effluent) for cooling instead of fresh drinking water. For instance, Google uses reclaimed or non-potable water at over 25% of its data center campuses (one notable example is its Douglas County, Georgia data center, which runs on recycled municipal wastewater). Amazon Web Services (AWS) announced in 2023 that 20 of its data centers are cooling with purified wastewater instead of potable water. After cycling through the cooling system, this water is sent back to the treatment plant to be cleaned and reused again. These initiatives leave more drinking-quality water for the community and exemplify the industryâ(TM)s trend toward âoestrategic water sourcing.â Still, as of today, reclaimed water use is the exception. Most data centers worldwide are still using fresh water for cooling, although this is slowly changing with new projects and local regulations."

So evaporative cooling "destroys" water. And using treated wastewater (pure enough to use for datacenter usage and probably irrigation, but still too ick for some people to drink directly - aka toilet to tap), if part of their investments were to purify even more water than the municipality was already processing, combined with closed loop usage could be considered "creating" water.

Your guess is as good as mine though, it all sounds like marketing hype in an attempt to combat FUD.

Ex-superpower that can't afford it's lifestyle. Like the US will be in a few years if we don't sweep the idiots out of power.

Well written code is self-documenting, specifically because once you start putting documentation somewhere else, you start getting a divergence in truth. And I'm not talking about leaving comments in the code - that's also documentation, as anyone who has had to reconcile business processes with code can attest upon discovering that the comments and the code also don't agree with each other. (This is where I try and sell people on having detailed commit messages, and then realize that they're all going to be lost the next time someone advocates for a squash merge...)

Refactoring is how you refresh your knowledge of the code and remove any accumulated cruft. Stuff like "Oh, we meant to do that in the next release, but we've completely removed that functionality, so this stub can go too.", and "Well shit, this algorithm doesn't work the way we thought it did - and the test suite is missing the test that would tell us that it doesn't work for that last 10% of use cases.", and "Uh... this method doesn't only do that one thing anymore, time to refactor and dry things out."

The moment you start relying on "tribal knowledge" to manage your code, you're fucked. Because very soon, as you have turnover (doesn't have to be layoffs - people can get promoted up or sideways, a bunch of people get hired, some people get transferred to special projects and start forgetting the stuff they maintained), the tribal knowledge distills to one thing: "If it isn't broken, don't touch it - you'll break it."

In other words... If your codebase is in decent shape, AI code bots are not a net negative unless people are blindly approving commits. If your codebase is in shitty shape, you're probably already having issues with diverging truth (and inability to scale), and you're fucked either way.

For some people's beliefs and values, whataboutism is all they've got to offer.

Well, that and projecting.

The even shout "aieeeeee!" when some something scares them.

Yeah, I think they forgot to include "stupid" in the long list of his faults.

Oh, but these are *preventative* wars. He gets a peace prize for every country he invades!

Venezuela was using fentanyl as a WMD. Iran was about to nuke us. Cuba might attack us with drones if someone provides them. Greenland might start a snowball fight, and make us look bad if we lose.

Presumably we've got all our best people on this, since they're obviously not on the UFO videos.