You have to get your kids up and make sure they get dressed and get to school. And you have to do that early because you have to get to work.

Now we could build a civilization around something other than work especially given how much automation we keep doing but fuck that right?

You might be right. I wonder about the bandwidth too. Starlink is already over subscribed and starting to enforce limits on its unlimited service.

In a non-commercial setting. You can do all the research you want at public universities I mean assuming you can get them funded.

And you can run whatever software you want at home.

The laws are targeted specifically at businesses who are chomping at the bit to abuse new tech.

It is funny to me to watch the centrists actually doing something about potential job losses while the left wing sits around with their thumbs up their asses. I am absolutely a lefty and I'm really sick and tired of how useless my side has become and how we have completely given up on the working class.

These satellites would be in LEO and fall back to Earth after 5 years anyway. They are thinking like Starlink where they need to launch thousands a year to maintain the constellation. The server hardware will be obsolete by then anyway. What sucks is that then we can't buy it used for cheap, and the fact that all that crap is burning up in the atmosphere and releasing who knows what.

If the cost to orbit is low enough, and there are no land taxes or electricity costs in space, and it solves the locality and latency issues for them, it starts to make more sense. Watching Scott Manley's videos, I was surprised by the thermal and electrical realities of putting stuff in orbit, but it's actually not nearly as bad as you might first assume.

Yeah that's some old shit. Anyone look at the case enough to know what the evidence was? Was it just quantity or was it packaged?

Oh look, it's the hipster maggot come along to tell us all how great slavery was.

No, it's reasonable. It's not safe.

The other part of that is that you're not necessarily doing the same equation, they may be solving for something something different.

The US has been oligarchic and authoritarian all along, and has behaved towards some other nations much like a fascist nation would do, but in general has not subjected the general citizenry to full blown fascism. It's been horrible to everyone other than landed white males all along, though.

You can't do things with a simple majority because one half of our political party, the Republican party, are batshit crazy fascists that we cannot trust with the power of a simple majority. And they consistently win Congress even though they consistently do not get enough votes to win Congress both due to voter suppression and gerrymandering.

So no we can't do things with a simple majority we need a supermajority because we need to put the brakes on a bunch of crazy fascists who are busy screwing us all over and we know it but like an abused spouse we just can't quit them

Bernie is usually correct and nobody really listens to him. The left wing has become pretty fucking useless. What he needs to be doing is focusing on voter suppression and that's what the left-wing everywhere needs to be doing. But that doesn't get the headlines so here we are.

What Bernie is trying to do is get attention to a movement because he's trying to do what worked in the '60s. This isn't a 1960s the fascists adapted to the tactics Bernie Sanders is using back in the mid-70s and he never figured that out. In his defense neither did anyone else on the left wing. I only figured it out a few years ago and fuck knows nobody listens to me.

Obama figured it out. That's why he formed his own organizations for combating voter suppression so that he could win his elections. But he's kind of a selfish little fuck so once he had what he wanted he didn't really do much more. And he left the Republicans dismantle what he built. Doesn't help that Hillary was happily letting that happen because she was undermining any potential opponents because people hate Hillary Clinton and always have and she knew she wouldn't get the nomination otherwise.

I've said it before but every single system designed to protect you has failed.

Too many voters are obsessed with tough on crime. It's politically impossible.

Go look at some midterm ads right now attacking the Democrats and every single one of them will be going after them for either being radical socialists or weak on crime or both.

The Republicans do the same thing every time, they make a law often one that's already there with a few extremely minor changes that does something like make it illegal to be a pedophile or something when it's obviously already is, than they add something in it the Democrats can't vote for usually banning birth control or criminalizing abortion or something. The Democrats vote against the law because of course they do it's got a poison pill in it and then the Republicans run on such and such politician voted to let predators attack your children or something.

I am older than dirt and they have been doing this bullshit since I was a kid and since before that I'm sure and voters always fall for it.

Keep in mind that only gets the Republicans to about 45% but voter suppression can make up the other 6% and winner take all voting means they can win elections without winning elections. What some might call cheating... Or election interference if you're kind of dumb and don't just want to use the existing term voter suppression.

So anyway the point is the Democrats are constantly walking a minefield where they can't just ban things that sane and intelligent people don't want. And the Republicans are just fascists at this point.

It is funny watching a bunch of old people showing up at Community meetings where data centers are being rammed through and watching those people realize that after 50 years of undermining democracy for stupid reasons they no longer have a proper functioning democracy so they don't really have a say in anything. I've seen a couple of cases where people are just dumbfounded because the data centers are getting built and there's nothing they can do about it because they're too stupid to stop voting for people who are going to let the data center is be built so their communities are just fucked.

But during the elections they'll get scared of some trans girls or violent video games or whatever moral panic there is or they will get scared of the socialists or they'll get confused by advertisements about week on crime and then they will once again vote against what they actually want. And again that's only about 45% of the country that's that stupid but voter suppression works.

What? Presumably are what? No one can hear you over your cowardice.

If you can recognize that, then you should be able to do the math and figure out why it won't work. A quick napkin-based computation is sufficient. If I can do it, you can do it.

If we had reasonable regulations then a data center could go anywhere and not be a problem, but since we don't, they can only go into unpopulated places with lots of water and power without causing harm. Normal DCs can just go into ordinary commercial zones because they use, while elevated, not completely obscene amounts of power and therefore water. And to return to the topic, this illustrates why AI DCs don't make sense in space, because cooling is harder in space than it is here.

I suppose to be fair when it comes to data centres the NIMBYs are probably right.