The main federal laws that are missing is a formal definition of what data you own and expect privacy and what data on you the company owns. In this case it is specified by contract which may or may not have been breached not law.
I am not sure that the capital would not be allocated differently.
Whether or not we have a google, we will have advertising, perhaps at more competitive rates with more competition. Monopolistic Megatech v. No Tech is a false choice.
On a straight revenue side, corporate tax, in total, accounts for about 10%. Granted there is additional income paid through salaries because of these giants, but the I doubt with reallocation it is profound as you are claiming.
The keyword here is "profitability." These companies are hyper-profitable and have a near monopoly in their line of business. Just having companies that barely eek out a living isn't sufficient.
In a capitalist environment, profit approaching 0 through competition is more ideal than monopolists naming their price. Think of it this way, Google is Basically ad tech, each dollar they don’t make does back to the primary company buying ads.
> The US government can restrict access with IP blocks and limit inference capacity with export controls, but these measures are not effective in deterring malicious actors.
But aren't we talking about import controls, and the import of information itself? This has serious First Amendment ramifications.
Also, the 5th and 9th amendments. For the government to sustain a blanket prohibition on any U.S. citizen even possessing what amounts to a broad, economically significant technology will very likely require a new act of congress which specifically defines and limits what is banned, when, why and how. SCOTUS will almost certainly see it as a "major question" subject to 'strict scrutiny' which is a very high bar.
The truth is no one knows, which is why it is first amendment ramifications. Eventually it will be “decided”, but the arguments indicate any decision will be of political desire, not logic, either way. Both sides have a strong case.
The Supreme Court has added various forms of expression to first Amendment protections. Heck, even campaign spending has been classified as speech. So you may speak English, but not "legal".
With low pitched data center noise does the decibel level tell the whole story? I thought it carried better and penetrated better than the db level would indicate.
I generally agree that I would not like to live across the street from a datacenter. Having worked inside of dozens of them, I could not care less if I lived half a mile from one. Most people who live within such a distance currently do not have a clue. At that point I would not even worry about the noise from the backup generators.
It's the gas turbine generators at the massive DCs causing the big issue. There are dozens of them. Not your typical historical DC/colo or even 5yr ago hyperscaler DC.
These sorts of things done remotely close to residential areas are very rare in the grand scheme. And I agree these specific projects are a major problem.
It’s just not representative of the bigger picture when there are a dozen horrible projects against say 1000 total.
The hyperbole is what gets my mom terrified of moving to a city that might allow a datacenter to be built 8 miles away from the place she was looking at.
> These sorts of things done remotely close to residential areas are very rare in the grand scheme.
I'm sure that will be a great consolation to the thousands of people who have to live near them. "Don't worry, your situation is very rare! That's why we don't have to do anything about it."
It’s my understanding, for the most part, that they do not have constant access to fire arms, that they are somewhat tightly controlled on base precisely because the army has learn widespread indiscriminate access is a safety problem despite all this training.
The army "learned" no such thing. There was never a safety problem with guns on military bases. Guns were banned by Bill Clinton as part of a broader gun control push by the Democrats.
The effect has been the opposite of increased safety. We've had a couple of unopposed mass murder incidents on US military bases since the ban went into effect, most notably by Nidal Hasan, who was able to kill 13 and wound 33 because nobody else had a weapon.
reply