I hope Texas gets all their data centers only to overwhelm their shitty failing power grid, and that they get a really harsh winter at the same time.
See what happens and how much their government really cares about their needs over that of a corporation.
They already keep info about chemical plants secret for “security” reasons. So if you live near one, tough luck. I wonder if they give the info to fire fighters, “By the way, we make rocket fuel.”
Now normal citizens are suddenly terrorists?
only if they want accountability from republicans.
If you stand against the machine, then you’re an obstacle to be crushed or silenced
Fucking ridiculous asshole.
Streisand effect bout to go brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Lmao right?
4chan trolls once figured out where Shia Lebouf raised a flag on a webcam stream by studying plane contrails and star charts.
Crusty old bench jockey thinks you can hide a data center from sheer spite and lulz? 😂
Still the most epic game of capture the flag ever. Star charts, planes, weather patterns. And they did it as a joke.
In under a day if I remember right. Maybe two.
US politicians just rotate between terrorists, children, and communism when they want to justify shit.
What kind of terrorist would give a shit about a Data center? They’d only be helping us by destroying them
The US economy (and others) are all in on AI. Destroying one of anthropic or openais datacenters would potentially cause massive damage to their valuations, which would ripple through the rest of the magic numbers. If investors got cold feet, it could be an economic bloodbath.
As a target to cause damage to the US, its pretty good.
The tech is already described as “too big to fail.”
The people saying that are all victims of the Eliza effect, greed, and not understanding fuck all about how anything in our existence really works.
It’s an economic bloodbath in every way, shape, and form. Accelerationists like the Trump regime and its supporters applaud it. It’s unsustainable environmentally and socioeconomically.
But the problem is really that the short sightedeness of the investors in these companies fail to see what will happen as soon as this industry fails with all that hardware.
The companies will be saved. Not the AI tools. The deal will be the goverment takes ownership of all of the datacenters. Those datacenters become the worlds most powerful surveillance system ever dreamed. How? The hardware for training and utilizing LLMs is identical to that of every other machine learning hardware.
Facial recognition accuracy will skyrocket. They will not only be able to identify where you last were, but they will be able to predict your exact location based on data they can gather without a warrant. Who is driving your car. When you are driving a car that isn’t yours. Who you talk to, and when. Every single bit of data a corporation can gather and sell to the government will be able to be processed.
It’s already happening to a large degree. Right now, there are false positives. They don’t want that. False positives don’t allow for complete control.
These people in power have one driving objective: social homeostasis. Its driven from a core anxiety that people must live their certain way, and bad things happen when people don’t.
Those bad things vary in their mind - people get murdered, people get stolen from, people get sick. But it can also be “I won’t go to heaven if I don’t help fix this” or “this is the reason there is poverty” or “the world is too fucked, so we need to reset, and through strict control we can force a reset.”
Doesn’t really matter if they release the information, anyone with functioning eyeballs will eventually stumble upon them and post it online with a question “since when is there a data center here” and it it won’t take long since those fuckers are huge.
Also they are worried about terrorists? Nah they should be worried about people who are fed up with their bullshit because terrorists operate in small cells and are mostly decentralised but regular people can come together in a short amount of time and in greater numbers.
Nah they should be worried about people who are fed up with their bullshit because terrorists operate in small cells and are mostly decentralised but regular people can come together in a short amount of time and in greater numbers.
Terrorists are regular people. It’s a word that doesn’t really mean anything.
It has meaning, but that meaning is subjective. “Terrorists” are just people acting in a fashion to cause intense fear.
To you and I the data centers people are terprists because they cause intense fear to everyday folks over resources, rising costs, quality of life issues etc.
To the data center people everyday folks might be terrorists because they’re afraid people will stand up where their governments won’t.
I’m guessing ”terrorist” will trend up as more people start to understand what the fa means in antifa.
Yet it excludes the largest group of people who act in a fashion to cause intense fear: the government.
It basically just means “designated enemy of the state” and is used by our enemies to label us as acceptable targets. They charged the ELF with terrorism for starting fires and never hurting anyone; their goal wasn’t even to cause fear it was to cause property damage. It doesn’t matter, they were designated as enemies of the state and so they were terrorists.
It basically just means “designated enemy of the state”
That’s how it’s used but that’s not what it means. We seem to fundamentally agree; my point is mostly that “terrorist” is a noun that we, as people, have allowed to become a proper noun with a universal adapter.
It’s become a buzzword that gets thrown out to delegitimize opposition of any sort. I figure this is where you’re coming from when you say it has no meaning because we’ve allowed the word to be cheapened.
A person, group, or organization that uses violent action, or the threat of violent action, to further political goals; frequently in an attempt to coerce either a more powerful opponent, (such as a citizen or group targeting a government), or conversely, a weaker opponent, (such as a government, or even an internal citizen or group, being targeted by a larger government).
A person, group, or organization that uses violent action, or the threat of violent action, to further political goals
That describes the current US government perfectly. It describes the Israeli government and military perfectly. It’s actually pretty spot on with a lot of government action at various points across the globe.
Once citizenry react to a government “that uses violent action, or the threat of violent action, to further political goals”, I think we’d agree, they are not terrorists but in fact anti-terrorists.
That’s how it’s used but that’s not what it means
How a word is used is what it means tbh
There we disagree. If I called your comment a sandwich it doesn’t change the meaning of the word. In fact, people would rightfully call me out for misusing the word.
People need to start doing that for words like “terrorist” or “socialist” or “communist”. Language is frequently co-opted by bad actors. Each of us has a choice to fight back against it or to give in to it.
“How a word is used” is not the same as “how you personally use a word”
Individuals don’t get to determine the meaning of words, and that’s what you’re trying to do by insisting that “terrorist” has some kind of special meaning beyond “enemy of the state”. Words are defined by law and history and society and usage, not individuals.
Legally, a “terrorist” can only be a “designated enemy of the state”
Historically, “terrorist” has always just meant “designated enemy of the state”
Socially, a “terrorist” is just used to refer to “designated enemy of the state”
And, in common usage, “terrorist” just means “designated enemy of the state”
You’re trying to insist on some more concrete meaning beyond this, and it’s just not real. It’s a useless word for us.
“We can’t tell you where the datacenters are.” Meanwhile the NSA datacenter near me with the backup generators and cooling towers mapped on OSM:
I think they could figure it out.
Texas makes the news a lot these days, but not for “good” reasons.
“The one-star state”
