mukbangpervert

"The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) should be dismantled and many of its functions eliminated"

That's a direct quote.

The fact that it wasn't first on the list doesn't mean it's not on the list.

(no response needed; I know that you're a partisan actor to the degree that direct discussion with you offers no value to myself or to society. You're too dishonest, too sociopathic, and too disinterested in truth.)

The UN defines genocide, in part, as "deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction in whole or in part."

This accurately describes Israel's multi-faceted genocide against the Palestinian people.

It is a genocide. It is mass murder. It involves direct violence, starvation, destruction of economic possibility, and it is morally abhorrent.

> your solution is the slaughtering of millions of Jews

The destruction of Israel does not mean the murder of Jews. A government can be replaced without killing everyone in the country. History is full of examples of this. Genocides are considerably _less_ common.

The IRGC is a morally abhorrent organization. You'll never hear me argue otherwise. They victimize not only their neighbors, but also their own populace.

Also, the US bombing of the Iranian school was not a "grave mistake", it was the predictable result of reckless and incompetent leadership.

Other AI partners had stated that fully automated target selection without a human in the loop could be catastrophic -- and instead of adding a human in the loop to review the targets, US military leadership switched to Grok, whose leader had no such qualms.

The predictable result: hundreds of dead innocent children, and Americans like you who simply do not care at all.

No responsibility, no accountability, nothing at all... just some racist assholes arguing it's fine to bomb schools because the IRGC is awful (and because you love Israel).

Sorry, Iran has a "responsibility" to defend itself.

And America's decision to slaughter Iranian schoolchildren was completely optional. It happened only because Israel convinced Trump that there was an easy win available.

Americans should be grateful that Iran has shown great restraint in their response.

You're jumping to conclusions.

Deletion to protect privacy does not prove deletion to prevent apprehension.

I could believe that everything is wholly innocent, but wish to protect privacy regardless.

I agree that datacenters showed up because a ton of fibre was already there.

I was talking about reasons that the general public of Loudon County has had a positive view toward datacenters -- not why datacenters chose the county (that's a different list entirely).

Notably, that the datacenters showed up in a way that offered almost no material downsides to the locals... and that this differs markedly from what many towns face today.

A few things you might want to consider:

1) your example pays very substantial tax. (property taxes, plus, recently, tax on electricity use)

2) your example primarily used undesirable land.

3) your example grew slowly, allowing the power company to add capacity without a big challenge matching demand.

4) your example is in a heavily connected part of the grid, so it didn't need all of that added power generation to be local.

All of these factors led to datacenters being viewed favorably by Loudon County for most of this century.... but many (and sometimes all) of those factors aren't there for other projects. For example, there are a lot of projects where the datacenter is not paying any property tax or sales/use tax at all.

Heck, even in Loudon County, they're changing regulations to pump the brakes because the hyperscale datacenters are growing electric demand a bit too quickly for them to manage without adding a little friction.

Your anecdote about "it was good in this one county, from 1995 through 2025" cannot be reasonably extended to believe that all of these projects have similar tradeoffs.

(And I'm not even getting into the reality that "this datacenter will let me use AOL" will, of course, be viewed differently than "this datacenter will help my employer remove my job.")

It's inaccurate to claim that the opposition is "completely irrational".

One _extremely_ rational and common reason that people oppose these projects is that they can bid-up the energy cost in their regions, meaning that one of the residents biggest monthly bills gets bigger.

A second one goes around pollution and noise, particularly when the AI DataCenter is using "portable" gas turbines or similar.

Solutions are hard, but possible... so long as the decision makers are able to recognize that much of the opposition is quite rational, and that the deals struck need to accommodate the legitimate and rational concerns, while avoiding getting hung up by true nonsense.

They described their car as having "auto-installed" the update.

An update which advertised, amongst other features, that it "rectifies errors and prevents security gaps" and stated "This update is recommended for everyone."

Borderline insane to refer to the user as "complicit" in that case.