gnfargbl

I feel like I did re-read the same article, or at least a version of it. Is this how content marketing operates these days? Find a popular blog post, rewrite it and attach your company's name to the end?

Immediately and totally exiting the domain is about as close to admit you messed up and call it a day as you'll ever get from a modern company.

The statement can use whatever weasel words it likes, but the action pretty clearly says "we aren't mature enough as an organisation to handle this responsibility." Which would be quite the concern for me, if I were a customer for one of eMudhra's other product lines.

One repeated failure that I have noticed as I age is that is folks expect change to either happen quickly, or to not happen at all. As a species we collectively seem to lack the patience that reality demands of us, probably because our own useful lifespans are so short.

Self-driving trucks are not here, nor are they coming anytime very soon, but driver assistance systems really have advanced meaningfully since 2012. They will continue to do so, to the point where I imagine driving without them will feel pretty alien. I feel much the same way about AI; it will change everything, but we need to be thinking of that change on thirty or fifty year timescales. 2030 won't feel so different to 2025.

You could hack critical infrastructure before AI. Any and all of the bulk internet scanners have had lists of exposed critical infrastructure for quite a while now. At first it was shocking that nothing ever got done about it, then it became routine.

All that AI has done is to lower the bar of entry for criminal activity. Which is a concern, but it's not the primary concern. The primary concern remains that so much critical infrastructure is poorly secured.

The saying usually refers to emotional load, and not physical load. Which is very apt here: datacenter water usage is an emotive issue, but one which is completely meaningless in actual environmental terms.

An argument about factors of 10^-6 of a renewable resource, is not a serious argument.

We have real environmental problems, like excess CO2 in the air and forever-chemicals in our biosphere. The narrative must stay with those material issues and not be diverted by trivia.

Sure, and they'll be cognizant of that risk when considering expansion. The lessons of the dotcom fiber boom aren't that distant in memory.

Your argument in the post up-thread appears to be that because the Native Americans did not cultivate or make use of the land in any Western sense, they have no claim to ownership. The Kant quote attempts to repudiate this by stating that it makes no difference whether we consider the Native Americans' use of the land to be ineffective: their deprivation of it is still an injustice and, when it comes to injustice, the ends cannot justify the means.

I don't find Kant's position at all convincing, mostly because the two parties' understandings of the concept of "ownership" were not mutually intelligible (possession vs usufruction). However, the quote does have relevance to your post.