I mean ... sure... how many universities maintaining golf courses are currently being built in the middle of bumfuck nowhere next to small country towns?

The stupid part about people claiming water use is a cancer from datacentres is the equally stupid people on the opposite side of the argument who use comments like "completely false". Any absolutionist on either side of the issue is an idiot. The people you criticise, and you. AI sucking up water that people need to survive is a topic that is situationally correct and situationally false. I'm sure you feel pleased that you found a case where it was false, but that doesn't make you smart, it makes you lucky. There very much are datacentre projects that are causing insane strain on local water resources, and if planners are doing their job, the local university (LOL) won't have a golf course in those places either.

Sure, if you ignore the rest of the sentence which mentioned what the water was used for you would come to that conclusion. Come on man, you got so far there were only 5 additional words after concrete to reach a full stop and for a civil project those words are very relevant.

False. The use of water for cooling and how the loop is designed is a more complex issue that depends greatly on local economics, regulations, and environment. But really your post is irrelevant because...

Ground has been broken. The site is under construction. At this point of any project not only has the cooling system been designed, it will have also been purchased, and permits have been agreed and applied for and very likely already granted. There's no scenario where someone is saying now it's closed loop only to change to open loop before it's finished other than that person flat out lying, and that lie would be easy to uncover.

I have a feeling this is the goal. Declare a policy that will take effect right after it is anticipated the next guy will reverse a policy. Pander to the current leadership while making sure this braindead fucking idea doesn't get off the ground.

20 years ago I thought these agencies were incompetent. Now I know that it was actually their peak. The FCC of prior administrations would document their goals, send out a notice for public comment, write a proposed rule set, hold a hearing, the make a rule. Now they make a rule, and everyone goes "That doesn't even make sense" then they switch it. It's not just the FCC: It's the DOJ, DHS, EPA, etc.

Yes, we are more car dependent than the 70's, but thats only because we're a larger country, more populace more cities than the 70s

I grew up in the 70's....and to my eyes, it isn't much different as far as requiring a car to live....never in my lifetime has there been any meaningful public transit anywhere I've lived across the US, but it isn't like anyone I've ever known missed it, etc.

Just normal way of life here.....I started working at restaurants when I was about 16yrs....saved my money and bought my first car (with some parental help) as a senior in High School.....and got that first taste of independence ..

I just thank GOD there was no social media back then and we didn't have cameras everywhere....ugh.

But the US has always in modern times been car centric....to see when it was not you'd likely have to look back about 100 years....

The engine is not a flywheel and doesn't generate gyroscopic forces.

The only motorbikes which have flywheels are explicitly those which do *not* require a driver to lean into corners and attempt to keep the bike upright. For example many touring bikes have small flywheels to smooth out engine performance, but it's small to the point of providing fuck all kinetic energy to the rider and no gyroscopic effects. Some dirt bikes have larger flywheels and they are aligned in an attempt to keep a bike stable and upright when wheels get sucked into grooves.

You're talking about different things for different purposes with different effects.

The kinetic energy stored here is in the motor pistons not in a weighted rotational mechanism. It is very VERY different from using a flywheel, the latter of which are not actively used in motorcycles for kinetic energy systems. In fact quite the opposite, some bikes have them to improve vertical stability - not racing bikes mind you because you don't want a system providing variable vertical force when you are heavily leaning into a corner.

You are right, seems like I mistranslated it.

Can you define the problem that fits into the Venn diagram of requiring this particular chip while also needing to run on Linux 7.2, and as you formulate your answer do so in a way that takes into account that 6.18 (LTS) will still support this thing first hand for another 2.5 years, and will continue to have backported support in distributions for years after that as well, so only include problems that will still exist in the 2030s.

Wrong question. It's no "how" about a modern kernel, it's "why" a modern kernel? What are you doing with your 486? Is it sitting in the corner humming away controlling the building AC, or are you live connected to the internet running some endpoint from a cloud connection?

Before we talk about using modern kernels on old hardware the question is why are we not using modern hardware for the purpose.

Obsolescence is a thing as well, when considering the idea of "it still works" you have to also ask what happens "if it stops working tomorrow".

Okay apply that same thinking to your brake pedal and accelerator. Ignore everything technical behind it and focus only on you and the control input and the degrees of freedom under control. The degree of freedom is one: acceleration. The control inputs are two: accelerator and brake. You as a human are actively in a better position having one control for accelerating and another for decelerating, even if both inputs can in some combination clash (pressing both at once).

Even in single pedal driving systems you still need a brake pedal because a control system that decelerates at full force would result in an incredibly rough and jerky behaviour. You can of course learn to drive with just one pedal in this way but you will likely never achieve the smoothness or precise degree of control you get by splitting the brake and accelerator to two inputs, especially in a control scenario where acceleration is significantly less strong than deceleration.

That is an extreme example, but one that shows a 1 to 1 relationship between inputs and degrees of freedom is ideal only in a very narrow range of circumstances. We learn about these 1 to 1 relationships in first year control theory of uni. The entire rest of a control systems theory is about dealing with all the other situations.

By the way even for a machine this is often too difficult, which is why we have things such as split-range control systems - again 2 handles to control one degree of freedom.

Oh that I very much agree with you. Most of management currently seems to have its head in the clouds. I don't disagree we are in an AI bubble with lies and promises being preached down from on high.

But I think the reality is somewhere in the middle, for example:

The question I have here is based on what? The AI industry is changing so fast that by the time any large scale decision is made at an enterprise level the capabilities are vastly different. In a way it's management's job to push for change. Not all change will work, but some change may provide competitive edges over others. Workers on the other hand abjectly hate change. Behind me is a guy who hated everything AI with a passion, but management thought otherwise. Our management thinks we're going to cure cancer with AI, we're not. But somewhere in between Management dreams and the guy behind's me being disgruntled and hating the idea of AI even existing, we've settled into a happy medium where he now uses CoPilot to speed up contextual searches through mountains of standards and documentation.

The correct answer is there is almost always an ideal middle ground, and you'll never get to that middle ground without the two extreme views countering each other from opposite ends. Management are delusional, but that delusional does achieve something.

No I think you've misunderstood my point because you have this backwards. There's nothing about my post that implies that any company is "huge". My point is that the EU does *not need* huge companies to do what they are proposing. You don't need an Amazon to cover government services of individual EU countries. You're fixated on the Netherlands as if this is a tiny outlier, but it's the 7th largest nation in the block meaning that holding up NL as an example of a country that has no problem using local cloud providers is evidence that the majority of the EU nations are actually able to do the same.

The discussion isn't about scaling to the size of a US company. The discussion is about that not being a requirement.

Not sure what humour you are talking about. There's nothing funny about extensive labour laws providing employee protections from abusive employers.