Torch it. Torch it before its too late.

Concrete, steel girders, and server frames don’t combust easy, unfortunately.

Not with that attitude LoL

It’s not about “attitude” it’s about thinking it through and finding a method of attack that would actually do damage that can’t be repaired in under a week if not ignored completely.

That’s right. Salt water it is.

What if they put it in rice?

See the rice attracts the Asians to come fix it overnight. There aren’t enough to fix something that big, especially with ICE getting rid of as many people as possible.

Jet fuel melt steel beams.

“Jet fuel doesn’t melt steel beams”…

You just need the right oxidizer.

We need an insider to charge the halon fire suppression systems with propane instead.

Or half oxygen half acetylene.

I hear jet fuel melts steal beams.

Companies have directors and shareholders. They live somewhere.

That’s like dealing with a symptom.

The solution is you kill Jeff Bezos and furthermore you exterminate his entire bloodline. Like the rats they are.

Pharaoh ants.

It doesn’t need to be so, the asshole billionaires just don’t give a single fuck about anyone but themselves. They don’t even care about their kids.

They have enough money for generations of their children to live as untouchables. They don’t need to care about their kids.

they wouldn’t be able to do shit if we didn’t enable them to do it; point the anger at the right place.

What womam would want to have sex with those old pedos anyway?

🔥

It’s in one of the sunniest places in the US too. 6.0 kWh/m²/day of solar irradiance. There’s even already a relatively large solar farm in the same county.

If I were king they could run data centers with solar and fans. No outside power, no outside water.

You realize they are for sifting through the massive amount of surveillance data using AI right? They aren’t for ChatGPT. They are for categorizing and watching every person on the planet 1984 style.

Do you have a source for this?

Running an LLM is significantly less resource intensive than training it, and all indicators are that these data centers are being built to keep up the breakneck pace of companies racing to create AGI.

all indicators are that these data centers are being built to keep up the breakneck pace of companies racing to create AGI

Amazon? Nah, it has commercial interest in this, not scientific*.

Also, MAGA is pushing this like crazy, and destroying the planet in the process. For the next 10 years there’s by law practically no regulation wrt anything AI.

That said:

keep up the breakneck pace of US-American companies racing to create AGI more AI, or ELLM = even larger language models

This affects the whole world, esp. if other governments (looking at EU) simply swallow the narrative hook line sinker.

Fuck This Shit

* If you say they are chasing AGI you mean that they are willing to make decisions that will further that goal, not just further profits. And I do not believe that for one second.

I didn’t mean to imply it was scientific, any more than what OpenAI is doing is scientific. It’s all commercial.

I’m not sure what the rest of your comment is supposed to mean. They are chasing AGI. That doesn’t mean they’ll create it, of course, but that’s what they’re aiming at.

Nono, I’m sticking to my statement. If you say they are chasing AGI you mean that they are willing to make decisions that will further that goal, not just further profits. And I do not believe that for one second. I also don’t believe AGI is anywhere in the near or even medium future for us.

That said, they might say that they have such lofty goals.

I’m not going to dwell on this much longer, but your mistake is that AGI is a lofty goal, and not driven by greed.

I’ve seen your other pro-AI comments, always trying to gaslight people who you think know less than you. That is your mistake.

You consider what I’ve said to be “Pro AI”? lol

OK what is your stance towards AI? You always seem to be defending “it”

My stance towards AI is complicated. I think it’s an amazing technology with the potential to change the world for the better, but also the potential to change the world for the worse. I don’t trust it in the hands of giant for-profit corporations, and think we should, among other things, legislate some regulations to ensure transparency and prevent it from being used in ways harmful to privacy and democracy. I also acknowledge that technological advances don’t go in reverse, and AI is never going away.

Does that answer your question?

It does.

If not for the environmental impact which makes it an absolute no-no for the foreseeable future I might even agree with you except that my divided stance already starts one step earlier:

I think it’s an amazing technology

Maybe it was that 10 years ago but I find it hard to see it that way when people constantly state that they don’t even know what’s happening inside it (black box) and that whatever development has happened since then was heavily if not completely influenced by interests of power & money.

That said, there might be some models out there that have little or nothing to do with the mainstream development, and I recognize that, but I would not call them AI writ large - that’s what Big Tech does as described above.

Why else would you ask the source of a claim we all feel in our gut? Don’t you know you’re either with us or against us?

I make a distinction between feeling correct and being correct.

They’re literally buying up all the computing resources so that we can’t get any.

We will all have to communicate though walled gardens on dumb tablets.

They can quickly summarize vast amounts of text looking for any “undesirable” patterns using LLMs.

We will all have to rent computing time from them.

This is the point, this has been the point for a long time, it’s just that LLMs were the largest storm of “impressive to rubes” and “resource hungry”. Micron has already eliminated its consumer brand, Crucial. Hell, Peter Thiel (the Palantir guy) goes around giving talks about how “being against AI is the antichrist” just to make sure that all the remaining brainwashed sheep fall for the ruse.

This shit is not hard to see. They want to own our future entirely and they want us to pay them for the privilege.

Capitalism was a fucking mistake.

The future of this planet is a desert wasteland. They can rule over the fucking ashes. Nothing beside remains.

that’s my biggest worry, more data centers won’t lower the cost of LLM tokens.

The only reason they want so much compute power is to have AI agents watching and annotating everything flock cameras see.

not just license plate readers (a raspberry pi could handle that). but everything.

My paranoia is that in 5 years, if you protest, the police will come to arrest you with a long list of every “crime” you have committed: driving holding you phone, no seatbelt, a recipt flew out of your pockets… a long list of petty meaningless violations.

and they’ll have that list for everyone.

They are already unpopular now. Wait till the pigs dive even deeper in popularity.

They might convince the general population that the first amendment is not worth exercising, and instead we all neet to contemplate military style resistance.

Nobody apparently wants to bring trouble to themselves as long as there is still anything left to hope for. However that calculus can change once the powers that be engineer a life even more glaringly worthless than it already is. Lots of people are quiet quitting or not having children already. That trend will accelerate even further.

If ice killing random people on the street, on camera, multiple times, didn’t cross that line, a random construction site won’t do shit.

Just imagine the number of misclassifications…

Wait, it does not run on solar, even partially? JFC.

edit: yep.

Amazon has confirmed its investment in a massive gas-burning power plant in Texas, meant to supply up to 7.65 gigawatts of energy to a planned data center in Pecos County. Should it come online as planned, the plant’s 35 turbines would be allowed to spew 33 million tons of CO2 a year, the NYT notes, which would easily make it the largest single fount of emissions in the country.

It would also be in stark defiance of Amazon’s stated climate goals, which center on reaching net-zero carbon emissions by 2040.

🤦

Does greed know no end in this country?

it does know an end. in fact, the end just pled guilty to stalking ending in death in new york.

It‘s universally known by now that new mega data centers are generally powered by gas. And it‘s the same everywhere in the world. Destroying them and prohibit exorbitant wealth are measures that are long overdue already. We genuinely do not need all that calculating power. Not for this high of a price.

No, we really don’t.

7.65 GW × 24 hrs / 6 kW/m2/day = 30.6 km2 of just solar panels, just for this one data center

The solution isn’t solar, the solution is don’t build it

This thing is 7.65GW. The largest solar array in the US is 900MW and uses 4600-5000 acres. The scale to do this on solar alone is bonkers, but not impossible.

You would need to at least 4x provision it which means a 30GW solar array, and 156,000 acres, before getting into battery storage for non sunny times.

It’d be nice to use some solar absolutely, but this is better suited to nuclear.

Edit: And if you aren’t storing / over provision to store, then you still need the peak output from another source anyway and these things likely always run near peak as they are constantly in use, so the size of the non-solar source doesn’t reduce, only its output during the sunny day time hours. So you end up with 7.65GW of natural gas still, but maybe they also build a 1GW solar farm on the side.

At that scale you aren’t using batteries, you are pumping water into a hydroelectric dam.

At this scale everything is bonkers. The hoover damn is 2GW.

That severely limits where you can place it, probably more than solar. Now you need all that extra water, and height differential that can be at that scale.

Nuclear power run by a publicly traded company worries me.

Because there will be shareholder value vs. safety trades.

Probably shouldn’t be run by them i agree, but they could fund it and go into some agreement to purchase its power.

Maybe Trump and Denmark can cover the ice in Greenland with solar cells. That’s about 434,000,000 acres

So don’t build it. It needs too much power.

Everything but run them on renewable energy.

Papa trump and his minions need their money

Maybe when Trump is dead and gone, they’ll switch to solar. Solar’s gotta be MUCH cheaper for them in the long run anyway, and frees them of ties to industries known for being exploitative.

Did they think what would happen if the gas price goes up and their profitability is completely dependent on that?

Right? That’s my thing, look at airlines and their Razer thin margins. They just built this megastructure and can’t operate any of it without completely depending on gas prices.

Even without the green aspects no one stopped to think about the return on investment of layering the entire place in solar? 5 years from now? 20?

But can you imagine if the datacenters also hoarded all the solar panel production capacity through 2028?

Although we would benefit from the dirt cheap panels from the bankruptcy auctions, while almost nobody has use for hbm memory chips

Until it goes dark, like fibre…

“Growth and sustainability don’t have to be in opposition — in fact, our results show they reinforce each other.”

Oh yeah, makes total sense guy.

More context:

It would also be in stark defiance of Amazon’s stated climate goals, which center on reaching net-zero carbon emissions by 2040.

That’s not lost on the tech giant. But as Amazon spokesperson Margaret Callahan told the NYT, the “world looks different now than when we co-founded the climate pledge.”

“We’re being transparent about the challenges, investing in innovation, and delivering measurable results,” Callahan continued. “Growth and sustainability don’t have to be in opposition — in fact, our results show they reinforce each other.”

That is so cynical.

The USA and its legislation (10 year moratorium on all AI regulation) is what changed.

The world is continuously and slowly going in the same direction since they “pledged”. Nothing has changed there.

Slowly?

The number of hurricanes, floods, droughts, earthquakes and fires on all the news sources would indicate otherwise.

Still slow compared to MAGA

Have these geniuses considered burying these massive structures and build the cooling stack on top to use that heat for some other use?

Or better yet: not even building these monstrosities?

Trying to re-use 7.65GW of excess heat would be a monumental task of it’s own, but at a smaller scale, it works well. Things like a smaller datacenter heating the pool nearby etc. They should at least be trying to reuse as much as possible, pipe it to nearby things.

First coming to mind would be using to store heat in sand batteries. Heat water for swimming pools makes sense as well. Perhaps use it to dehydrate sludges from waste waters.

It’s just a matter of imagination.

Its just that its a lot. Like 8.5% of the entire Texas ERCOT grid at peak during its last peak in August.

There is a paradox which I can’t name now that states that every time there are advancements capable of solving scarcity problems instead of ending the issue new uses for the solution are come up with and what became plentiful gets stressed again.

That much excess heat is energy. An immense amount of it. Maybe use it to smelt scrap or process artificial diamonds.

The matter at hand is, for a change, excess when it is usually the opposite.

You’ve seen where they want to build this, right? Heat is not an issue.

Hence my statement: it’s a matter of imagination

Holy Luigi!

We need Climate Action. How to nip this in the bud before they even start building the power plant. And not burning, or blowing up. That’s bad for the world.

one time carbon cost vs decades of compound carbon interest.

I’ll take the lump sum, please.

I’m so glad I never procreated.

With any luck I’ll croak before the worst effects of these decisions manifest.

Remember that Stargate SG1 episode where they find themselves into a huge underground facility that is under attack by external forces. Jack O’Neill accepts to pilot one of their drones to help defend the complex from a wave of bombers and is infuriated to learn that the attacker’s bombers were manned while he believed they were unmanned.

spoiler

At the end it turns out the facility was actively poisoning the entire planet, threatening to wipe out all life and the “attackers” were simply the people of the rest of the world trying to stop it.

That is what the Amazon data center is to me.

Don’t tempt me to rewatch all of SG1 again >.>

You mean don’t tempt you with a good time?

Which episode is this, this might get me into SG1

The one with Odo in it!

Season 4 episode 2

!Evil!< Odo!

Tap for spoiler

Add a spoiler warning!

Good idea

always the fascist…

A key thing there is that the bunker dwellers were at least eugenicists if not outright Nazi analogues and they were deliberately killing everyone outside as untermensch, it wasn’t just a callous side effect of their facility.

I need to watch it. I’ve never seen it. I’m too young I guess.

Amazon: “but but but! we have over 50,000 electric delivery vans, and we sent Capt Kirk to space!”

can we use some patriot missiles for something patriotic?

How do you think they’re clearing the native residents off the land?

If the U.S. blew this up, I’d concede that the U.S. actually does help the world from time to time.

Welcome to costco, I love you

Shut it down.

Weren’t they supposed to be carbon neutral by 2030? Sure seems like they’re trending the wrong way

That was just talk

Don’t forget to use your paper straws people! It’s the average person that causes harm to the climate, not businesses. Maybe we should give them more tax breaks.

You’re going to be surprised when you find out who consumes what businesses produce…

“Yet you live in society, curious.”

Not only that, actively consume products and blame the creators of the products for the consequences.

I don’t know, if you actively are reducing your shopping from amazon and try to stay away from their products, I wouldn’t call you a hypocrite for criticising them. And many people now a days are doing just that, so you can’t really assume right from the start that a person is being hypocritical.

Amazon is a seller, they don’t manufacture almost anything, but that’s beside the point. It’s not about the individual. I can blame either BP for drilling for oil, or the millions of people who refuse to:

• drive an EV
• ordering the more expensive but locally manufactured products that don’t need that much transportation
• vote for walkable cities and public transportation
• simply consume less stuff

That would require introspection, and maybe accepting responsibility. It’s easier to live in a world that the BP’s CEO is the bad one and me and all of my friends are blameless victims.

Billionaires can only burn so much oil with their private planes and yachts, they don’t consume 100 million barrels per day.

Retrospection is always nice and needed and consumption habits definitely need to change. However there is something to be said of someone who single handedly and deliberately pushes the world towards more and more unsustainable consumption habits because they are playing the world like they are playing a game of monopoly. Imagine opening a supermarket chain in a town with local shops and driving others out of business by creating unfair competition with very low prices (by providing goods from countries with lower wages and questionable production standards). Sure you can also blame the local consumers for being selfish and not owning their community but in some cases people actually have to choose between cheaper grocery prices vs other essentials. And now in this case you are comparing someone who is being selfish because it becomes a matter of providing yourself and your kids with basic necessities vs someone who already has billions but is driving even less sustainable consumption practices because it makes them more money. To me it is clear in this case on whom the bigger part of the blame falls to. Educate people and ask them to do retrospection yes but as long as people like billionaires exist, they will actively look for ways to exploit the system. So they should not exist.

Billionaires can only burn so much oil with their private planes and yachts

Everything aside, if someone is personally consuming yearly the fuel equivalent of hundreds of people, I can still call them a much more selfish person even though on a grander scale that particular impact is negligible compared to totality of commercial flights.

And don’t forget to vote for the lesser evil party that will allow amazon to build just a dozen of these enormous datacenters instead of even more

It would also be in stark defiance of Amazon’s stated climate goals, which center on reaching net-zero carbon emissions by 2040.

That’s not lost on the tech giant. But as Amazon spokesperson Margaret Callahan told the NYT, the “world looks different now than when we co-founded the climate pledge.”

What the fuck? They looked at the world recently and said “yeah, climate change isn’t as much of a problem as it was before”?!?

Or maybe “eh, it’s fucked anyways, let’s make red line go up”.

No, they looked at the blatant corruption from Fatboy McKiddieFiddlers regime and figured, “eh, what’s the point of pretending to give a shit. No fucker has got the balls to stop us from fucking thing up.”

“current gov allows us to do anything so we don’t care anymore because that’s cheaper”

It’s those pesky Canadians again, it’s all their fault for mismanaging the fires, not the fact we are cooking ourselves alive.

They mean politically, they can get away with this now without blownack, they never gave one single shit about the climate

The same company that will same day deliver a single tube of toothpaste to my door doesn’t care about carbon emissions? What?

On one hand that sounds bad, but if that delivery driver is dropping off enough things in one run that would have been individual people driving to a store, does it balance out?

Maybe, but Amazon in particular will also bag/box every solitary thing. Not sure if it balances, but it’s an interesting question when you put it that way.

Still, I expect they prioritize meeting service levels over fuel economy.

True. Definitely not saying they are more efficient or vouching for them, just a curious thought. They definitely do a lot of stupid shit like, as you said, bag individual items that absolutely do not need it. Or worse, I’ve ordered groceries through them and I’ll get a bag that contains one onion, meanwhile it could have gone into literally any other bag. I’m guessing a byproduct of some weird logistics design sacrificing all else over internal efficiency.

Sounds like an engineering nightmare

Ah but the never-ending deluge of Just Dance Vance videos is worth it!

BUT it was ALSO create THREE whole jobs so it’s WORTH it!

But the grid can’t handle EV or the “pollution” they create.

Fun fact: This could possibly be true at the same time.

While this certainly could be true, I would say it’s only that way because state and federal government refuse to invest in our aging energy grid.

with proper taxation and directing that towards upgrading the infrastructure, supporting it is absolutely possible.

funnily the all the “grid can’t handle all the EV charging” is just assuming everyone is going to fast charge the same time, when in reality most are just going to be using either level 1 overnight charging every night or fast charge for a way shorter time so very few people are doing that at the same time.

Net zero doesn’t mean lowering pollution btw. Net zero means essentially cancelling out any pollution by planting trees, buying carbon credits, etc. It’s possible to be the biggest polluter and also net zero as a company. If that actually helps the planet is another story.

Most “we plant a tree for every _____” things are just scams. They plant the trees, sometimes as monocrops that could never become a healthy forest, and usually without monitoring the trees or guaranteeing their survival into at least early-maturity.

Trees get too much credit. It’s plankton in the ocean that absorbs like 70% of all co2

Don’t plankton mostly release that back into the atmosphere when they die though? Trees sequester it underground as roots and above ground as wood (assuming it doesnt burn, which is an increasingly ambitious assumption)

Yep, and many of them just never plant any trees at all.

Well, as long as trees magically suck pollution out of the atmosphere in extremely high numbers, and sequester it for at least a few million years, that should be fine

Otherwise, we’re probably fucked.

In case it was not your intent to point this out with sarcasm, for anyone reading:

1. not all forests are created equal: new growth forests are simply not as good at long-term burial of carbon.

2. carbon sinks only work so long as the carbon stays sunk, so if a tree dies and rots before it’s buried, all of that carbon just goes back to the atmosphere, except a lot of it is now methane, which is MANY times worse than CO2.

3. this means that it is possible for a poorly - managed tree to actually be an effective carbon source for the purpose of greenhouse gas emissions, rather than a sink, since a single molecule of methane can do the damage of a hundred molecules of carbon dioxide.

4. the largest carbon sink on earth is not the forests, but the ocean, and that carbon only really has two ways out: back into the atmosphere, or buried at the bottom in the calcareous ooze. Now if you really want to understand how fucked we are, read up on the following:

• Carbonate Compensation Depth (see how it relates to the amount of calcareous ooze being buried in the ocean)
• Methane Clathrate Hydrate
• Permafrost Methane

i dont trees can safely do it fast enough. also its mostly co2 , pollution is a different matter. Also algae, phytoplankton make half of the carbon capture as well, a net benefit when they become marine snow and sink to the bottom of the ocean.

And we gotta be negative. Net 0 is a nice milestone on the way to build a future for our children.

I know this will be buried but it seems Ai isn’t worth anything really if these giant complexes are the price. Just straight up monetarily, who benefits?

These companies are all racing to dominate the market. Eventually one will win, largely through government contracts. Then all the infrastructure will be used to further propagandize, kill and spy on us.

looks like they are aiming for most govt contract= mass AI surveillance as a constant influx of profit, while they saw commercial use as a total failure, since nobody wants to pay for it, and the growing resentment against AI.

The company benefits by convincing investors that it’s still growing and innovating. If investors think they are still growing their stock prices go up. If their stock prices go up then they can use their stock as an asset to borrow against or as a form of payment in lieu of cash. Stock is particularly useful to a company as a medium of exchange because they can just make more. But they can only do that without tanking the value if people are buying, and they can only keep people buying if they think the price will go up, and the only thing the price will go up if they think the company is going to become more profitable in the future.

This is basically Cory Doctrow’s argument in his latest book.

Fossil fuel companies. Waha natural gas prices are super depressed in that area so it would be a big boon to the pricing environment there.

But Margaret have dog, can’t be mad…

Call Johnny Silverhand.

At this rate we are gonna have to mass clone Johnny’s engram. 1 nuke is not enough.

Imagine the local government decides they can’t pull water anymore. Like several nuclear reactors having to shut down due to low river levels recently.

The picture of facility in vast desert is baffling.

Almost every day I have a fight with my gf over her Amazon account. I told her we can not proceed with a meaningful relationship if she doesn’t cancel it. Am I the crazy one?

Yes. The effect of one person’s passive boycott is nothing. If you’re serious enough to sabotage your own relationships over this, then perhaps focus instead on a greater boycott campaign, or actively pushing for legislation to actually make a difference.

Don’t cut off your nose to spite your face.

Seconded. “There is no ethical consumption under capitalism” type shit. Pick your battles.

The effect of one person’s passive boycott is nothing.

This is some centrist capitalism-enabling shit. The sum of our individual efforts can amount to great things. Boycotts have been a great tool against fascism throughout history.

@Waffelmeister@lemmy.world is actually boycotting his relationship. I do not think it is wise for him to try to force her into submission rather than leading by a lifetime of example proving that one can get by just fine without Amazon and inspiring rather than coercing her to leave.

Honestly, this is more of a values disparity.

If two people have different values in some places in life, its normal to have adversity.

Just because it’s a capitalist themed value, doesnt mean this person is being irrational imo.

Mostly agree with you, leading by example is the way. I am amazon free, but my fucking goddamn husband, absolutely pays for prime for television (and almost never watches much there, very annoying) but, I have gotten him to change his buying habits, and he doesnt buy off amazon no where near what he used to, its like once a year now. Ive have been successful in teaching him to at least think about where he spends money, and who it supports. It took some time sure.

Fair. What I mean is that there’s surely got to be some sort of compromise. For example, if other members of his family are also Prime-subscribing, could they join to be an actual Prime family entity, and thereby share the cost and reduce the total amount of $ being sent to the giant?

Let’s remind ourselves this is a company actively supporting genocide.

force her into submission

coercing her to leave

You conclude there’s forcing and coercion from 2 sentences? I just see two people with apparently incompatible moral values about consumption. I don’t see any forcing or coercion. I think it’s a very valid reason. If he has or is willing to put patience into the relationship is also a decision he has to take.

Okay, so could you name alternate companies to move to that have definitely spoken against Zion? I’m certainly not pro-Amazon and am aware of the chokehold that AWS has on the entire Internet, but it sure seems there are fewer alts than we would hope. Also, how is an ultimatum not forcing?

Why do I have to name alternatives for you? I also find manipulative that the alternatives you seek from me MUST have definitely spoken against Zionist entity, when just not participating would be enough.

I think stating your boundaries about who you want to be with is not forcing. Would be forcing if his gf was dependable on him or there was emotional manipulation involved…

What I mean is that isn’t it hard to prove whether a company actually is supporting Israel unless they’ve been outright about being against it? I’m not trying to test you; I’m literally curious about what some of these are.

Also, is what he’s doing not emotional manipulation? “Ultimatum” or not, the exact wording doesn’t matter; if he really cares about continuing the relationship, He should be actively helping her find alternatives to the products that she would normally buy from Amazon and even link them to her to make it easy to move. He’s putting the work on her; that’s lazy and rude and controlling when he doesn’t even want to help her help the switch. Does that make sense?

Yes, wtf man?

Imho there are different aspects to this: are they binge buying useless stuff on Amazon constantly, feeding into mindless consumerism? are there more ethical alternatives available?

If someone uses Amazon for something they can’t find anywhere else, or that the alternative costs so much more they can’t afford it, then I understand. If they are just a mindless consumer and they do nothing to change that, they lose my respect.

At the same time, if that is a reason you are considering to break up with someone, imo it tells your relationship is not very solid to start with.

If they are just a mindless consumer and they do nothing to change that, they lose my respect.

god I am like this too. I met a woman (on disability no less, so cash strapped) who ordered so much goddamn shit from temu, it was taking over her house. She then flipped on the latest reality “love” based TV show, and I did not make a friend that day. Got the hell outta there whew

Don’t lose your righteous principles over a woman. Especially since she is your gf, not a wife.

Also don’t take relationship advice from one random person on the internet.

Get at least two opinions and dump her.

It is safe to say im done with amazon deleting my account now I will not support them anymore I worked there and saw how bad workers are treated and used to order stuff from them often im done with them period.

period

How ironic that you don’t know how to use one.

prick

Besides the US military, I’m sure.

It’s all worth it if my plastic “made in China” hula dancer arrives in time so I can put it on my cars dashboard. /s

it’s in texas though.

now all of a sudden we care about texas? what goes on in texas is as important to me as the affairs of a random tiktok influencer.

we’re fucked no matter if this data center is built or not.

As someone who currently lives in Texas, I care a little about Texas.

Anything from futurism.com should be immediately questioned.

Yay Texas the business-friendly state. As if billionaires aren’t raping the planet and all of us hard enough, the lone star state is always looking for way to pump their penises just a little bit bigger.

The red run deregulated Texas Oblast allowed this shit. Kiss the water supplies and eventually the local economy good-bye.