So then you support laws that empower unions to do more than just fund leadership's politics?

The myth that AI data centers are using up all the water comes from some incorrect citations that have then swept through sensationalist and poorly fact-checked (looking at you Washington Post) news stories. One major contributor was Karen Hat's "Empire of AI" which overstated the usage by three orders of magnitude. (She did publicly correct that, but you can guess how many people are interested in the non-sensational numbers).

For proportion, California almond growers use 90x the fresh water of all US data centers combined.

Which is not to say that a data center can't still be a strain for some communities, but not in a more extraordinary way than e.g. the local university wanting to maintain a golf course.

But "AI IS SUCKING UP ALL THE WATER PEOPLE NEED TO SURVIVE!!!" is a wonderfully concrete - if completely false - complaint for people uneasy about the recent advances in technology to latch onto

So this has nothing to do with the building being a "data center" at all. The water used if for construction and it could just as well be a stadium or an apartment complex. But since people are talking about data centers using water we'll take any opportunity to jump in on that even if it's amplifying a misconception by mentioning it in adjacency to unrelated events.

Can you answer the question of why he would lie about either exactly? What is his sourced motivation? How does that stack against his incentive to not blithely throw away his career as an accomplished academic?

The actual explanation is much simpler. He is a world-reknown biologist, not a computer scientist or philosopher. He sounds dumb talking about what he is not an expert in.

You (I assume) have some developed expertise in the AI tooling. You (quite obviously) do not have any expertise in biology, or even the context of Dawkins statements you are alluding to, so you sound at least as dumb characterizing what he has said as "anti-trans crap."

Ebiikes are a legal workaround loophole for motorcycles.

The manufacturers aren't the problem. They aren't the ones who make the rules about how their product is used on public thoroughfares.

The context of that phrase is almost always used for people who invite regulation with their own foolish/dangerous behavior.

You realize there are a bunch of homes available for sale in all sorts of places for next to nothing. The problem isn't "housing", it is "housing where people want to live". Declining population in places like Italy have created housing collapse where nice houses aren't sold, and sit empty, and they'll pay you to move into one.

It isn't colonial, it is industrial. The current format of school is that of preparing for a factory workforce. We are post industrial, knowledge/AI/Whatever it will be called workforce.

Educators need to come to grip with getting EVERY child their MAX educational value we can. This means breaking the rows and columns of desks in a classroom, and getting kids their most valuable education they can get. This means some will do much better than others. Talent has gradations. Not everyone can be a Astro Physics expert.

At least this time you presented something more nuanced than "people can't afford housing because they spend too much on other things". You could have led with that.

Also, I live about as far from California as is geographically possible within the lower 48, so I'm not assuming any blame for what happens there.

What makes you think it's rich people who are doing the hiring?

Pretending that the cost of housing is a problem only for people who refuse to live within their means is certainly one way to show why resentment of the rich is near an all-time high.

"fair" is subjective. What you think is "fair" isn't really fair. It is objectively unfair to use qualitative terms in discussion of policy.

What would be fair, is that Government live within the means we ALREADY tax out of the public. Cut Spending first. Then, when all cuts that can be made, are made, then MAYBE we can have a discussion on tax increases.

Its Not Your Money.

Envy isn't a virtue.

The problem here, is "fairness" is subjective, not objective.

Use of that particular term is deliberate tug on the emotional center of brains. it works, which is why Progressives ALWAYS use it.

Which is exactly what they said a hundred years ago when they instituted the "income tax".

Rich people will move out. And take their wealth with them.

Taxes are regressive. All of them.

Conspiracy theories are, until they are not.

Secret Pedo island owned by rich dude with elitist ties was once a "conspiracy theory". Now we know that Epstein killed himself 100% because "They" said so.

"I'm just asking questions" idiots notwithstanding. I'm looking at you Candice.