Not to mention that their napkin math is wrong by a factor of 12
see also: @smallpatatas@gotosocial.patatas.ca
Not to mention that their napkin math is wrong by a factor of 12
You may want to double-check that math ;)
Did no one in the replies happen to notice that this is a loan
Corporations and surveillance?
Yep absolutely, and even those numbers likely represent raw emissions figures vastly lower than the true impact these data centres are having on global emissions.
For example, that Google report talks about EACs - here’s a great podcast episode that explains why these kinds of accounting methods are a complete disaster:
Reveal: It’s Not Easy Going Green
https://revealnews.org/podcast/its-not-easy-going-green-update-2023/
This move, at least on the face of it, seems to privilege the cloud giants over say, a company that maintains its own servers. That’s effectively a handout of public resources to those already fabulously wealthy and powerful corporations.
That’s where I drew the conclusion from
Isn’t technofeudalism great?
1 Ape = 1 Ape
I would like to hear you say it
What’s strange about defending people’s freedom to be themselves?
What’s the problem with drag queens reading to kids, exactly?
Like it or not, things sometimes become symbols for other things, and especially given the political climate, it makes sense for people to get their guard up if they see something that looks like one of those symbols that represents, say, an utterly toxic ideology.
Not wanting to make others navigate that stuff unnecessarily is a sign of thoughtfulness and pro-social tendencies, not weakness.
With energy companies, you mean? Like, we’ve seen federal governments of various countries cancel (or re-approve) pipelines all the time - Keystone XL comes to mind, for instance
The people stalking our neighbourhoods preying on people’s success
Interesting phrase there. Whole piece was definitely overblown, but this kinda gives away the game.
I’ll be honest, I have zero sympathy for any landlord here. Rent control is necessary to (hopefully) make sure there is housing that people can afford to live in - and acts as a kind of limit to the extraction of an ever-increasing portion of the paychecks of the working class by the landlord class.
If the renter loses the ability to pay for a home, they become homeless. If a landlord loses the ability to pay for a property, they become a renter. Economic conditions changed? How about this: these landlords should sell, and make property prices drop a little, instead of having renters getting kicked onto the street.
Thanks, yeah admittedly I hadn’t read the entire article before posting - and quickly realized the answer to my question when I did! I should really know better than to do that :)
Anyway, maybe the question I should have asked is more like, “why the heck did they give arbitrators so much latitude” - which it sounds like we agree on!
How on earth is it possible for an arbitrator to just override legislation like this?
Lol, and just immediately downvoted. Lemmy needs that essay more than I thought! Too easy to be reactive without accountability on this platform, sadly
Unfortunately, Meta is listed as one of their partners