Yeah, I'd call that sentence more... vapid and awkward, like much corporate speech, than tortured. It's not like it's unparseable; the meaning is fairly clear -- it's just pointless in the context presented. It serves no constructive purpose for the reader, being a vague attempt to invoke a nonspecific sense of nostalgia, likely to distract people from the frustration of the shop being closed? Corporations churn this slop out with or without LLMs

No one but you has said or implied anything of the sort.

You're free to knock on anyone's door and ask them questions, no warrant required. They are free to refuse to open the door, to not answer your questions, to slam the door in your face, or to order you to get off their property. Same for police.

If you want to compel someone to provide a DNA sample so you can match it against one from a crime scene, that definitely requires a warrant.

So you say, "That's too much trouble. I'll just go to a private company that has already collected DNA on millions of people. Those millions of people didn't agree to have their DNA used for criminal investigations, and all their relatives who share DNA with them didn't agree to have it used for anything at all. But who cares? I'll just pretend it doesn't need a warrant."

Scale matters. And how serious an issue does depend on percentage, not just absolute levels. Moreover, percentage is especially important when one is considering issues of prioritization, where I explicitly compared it to golf. So far, you've doubled down on insulting people rather than making any argument involving sources. It might also occur to you that you are apparently assuming that everyone you disagree must have some dishonest agenda. But if you bothered to actually read my comment with a minimum of good faith understanding, you would not that the comment explicitly notes specific problems from AI data centers, which should suggest to you that the agenda you apparently want to impose on the comment is not accurate. Now, it would be appreciated if you could actually attempt to respond with something resembling reasoning and sources and less insults. But I do appreciate from our prior interactions that is apparently difficult for you to do, so have a good day.

That's why I differentiated between Chinese made cars and Chinese brands.

There appear to be two interrelated issues with your sources. (Although thank you for giving sources, which was much more than the person you were replying to did.) First, there's a substantial issue with how representative these environmentalists are from the general movement. The ability to point to specific people doesn't really say much about the movement as a whole (although I will grant there's a decent fraction of the environmental movement which really does seem stuck in a 1970s sort of "degrowth" or "antigrowth" attitude). But you seem to also confuse sources saying "Hey, this is creating a serious problem" and not wanting to have that thing at all. The Science.org article for example is about the actual fact that steel production really does contribute seriously to climate change, but then much of the article is about the effort to make steel manufacturing more environmentally friendly. So the article is not about getting rid of steel manufacturing but about making it work better. Others in your list are not about getting rid of things, but moderation. To use the very last example, large scale car use really is creating a lot of problems. But one can recognize that and favor more moderation in terms of car use without getting rid of cars as a whole.

no problem.

Narcc, why are you incapable of polite discussion with people you disagree with? Would it hurt you so much to some day, maybe try to do people the courtesy of responding to what they have with some detailed arguments or reasoning rather than insults?

So, in order to protect against possible military applications(known for their cost-sensitivity...); we are making the sale legal as long as El Presidente gets his cut? That's in character, sure; but what's the paper-thin excuse for that being a cogent policy idea?

The environmental issues are exaggerated. It is true that electricity prices are going up, https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.solarreviews.com%2Fblog%2Faverage-electricity-cost-increase-per-year but this is barely a blip above the current (very high) inflation rates https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.minneapolisfed.org%2Fabout-us%2Fmonetary-policy%2Finflation-calculator%2Fconsumer-price-index-1913-. The complaints about water usage are also not highly reasonable. The vast majority of water used for data centers get reused. Current data center water usage is about a 10th of the water usage for golf courses by the most extreme plausible estimates, and US golf courses account for a bit over 1% of all water usage, so being concerned about data centers here when a more useful thing would be to not have golf courses in the middle of Arizona would be a far more reasonable concern. https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.usga.org%2Fcontent%2Fusga%2Fhome-page%2Farticles%2F2025%2F03%2Fwater-conservation-playbook-released-golf-industry.html. There are legitimate grid concerns; AI data centers don't just use a lot of power, but they use it in hard to predict ways, which makes load balancing the grid very difficult. So there are legitimate concerns.

But it seems like much of the left has adopted an anything involving LLM AIs is bad attitude in the US. This seems connected to the fact that the US attitude towards LLM AIs is more negative than pretty much almost every other country https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftoday.yougov.com%2Finternational%2Farticles%2F53654-english-speaking-western-countries-more-negative-about-ai-than-western-europeans. But rather than having a serious discussion about the positives and negatives of this technology (and there are a lot in both columns), there's this tendency to just pick any possible negative and throw it on the wall. This is also particularly unfortunate right now in the US because there's major problems with the Trump administration rolling back all sorts of environmental regulations, including not just those for CO2 but for many other pollutants, and the administration is now actively stopping almost any new US wind and solar on a large scale. While there's been some legal pushback against some of that (see for example, this victory just today https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2025%2F12%2F08%2Fclimate%2Ftrump-offshore-wind-federal-judge.html ) this would be a far better use of these groups time and resources than going after a specific industry.

They're dragging buzzwords through the water, so see whether they get any nibbles.

Your MBA/PHB eats this shit right up.

I'm actually responding to the AC above you. He is arguing that the attack wouldn't make any sense for either country to make, based on *national* interest. I'm pointing out that's not the only framework in which *regimes* make decisions.

How do you know that?

Being from Google, I rather assume the opposite - and that they probably focused their engineering effort to make sure the reduced battery life didn't give their corporate surveillance activities away.

In my entire life, I've never paid for something by check and been told I couldn't take my purchase until the check cleared. Not once. That isn't how the real world works.

Wrong. I saved the car dealer $800. The price for me is the same, unless they have a lower price when paying by check. Which some merchants do, because they can't afford to absorb the credit card fees.

I'll find out in mid January, lol - it's en route on the Ever Acme, with a transfer at Rotterdam. ;) But given our high local prices, it's the same cost to me of like 60kg of local filament, so so long as the odds of it being good are better than 1 in 8, I come out ahead, and I like those odds ;)

That said, I have no reason to think that it won't be. Yasin isn't a well known brand, but a lot of other brands (for example Hatchbox) often use white-label Yasin as their own. And everything I've seen about their op looks quite professional.

Interestingly though, while 20% of European sales of new cars are already BEVs, it's not the Chinese cars dominating. Chinese brands only have about 3% of the market, while BEVs made in China by non-Chinese brands like Tesla account for 8% of all car sales. The BEV market in Europe is dominated by Stellantis and Volkswagen. with some heavy dose of Korean brands.