Tell you what, if you oppose "data centers", which has devolved into a non-specific cause-of-the-day for stay-at-home moms to complain about, you don't get to reap any of their benefits.
NIMBYism has now become networked.
It only seems fair that you should be locked out of any apps, platforms, etc. that directly or indirectly rely on their function.
Ironically everyone loves data centers, as long as their function is sufficiently obscured and they are located "somewhere else". This movement thrives on the extremely low intelligence of its constituents, who don't seem to understand how the Internet and its applications they use, work.
Not all sites are equally suited for a data center. This is especially true when you look at plans that allow data centers to operate off of on-site generators prior to full grid connection. There's no reason data centers should be exempt from noise pollution controls near residential areas, and yet there have been cases where this is true.
Local politicians and commissioners also seem to be poorly suited to understanding the impact of data centers on their surrounding environs, being lured (as usual) by overly optimistic estimates of jobs and revenues.
> which has devolved into a non-specific cause-of-the-day for stay-at-home moms to complain about
This is a deeply uncharitable interpretation of people speaking up when there isn't anyone else speaking up for them.
I see. So you are saying that they are poorly suited to understanding the impact of DCs .. because obviously the job estimates .. vested interests (why not) .. basically you are saying “I know that others (politicians and commissioners) are dumb/lack smarts/gullable but I’m not since I’m so wise .. got it.
Not in isolation, no - but this is effectively light industry we’re talking about, and at least some of the infrastructure necessary to support it is being paid for by tax dollars. If you cut taxes for those entities too far, they end up not paying for the services they’re directly using.
They kind do cost the public millions of dollars. Land that once was taxed, stops generating tax revenue, (depending on the type of tax break) but the data center requires much more infrastructure: roads, lanes, sidewalks, lights, power transport, utilities. Then the public pays for all that infrastructure through fees and taxes. then the data center competes for utilities, driving up those prices. There's little to no upside. I understand the resistance.
NIMBYism has now become networked.
It only seems fair that you should be locked out of any apps, platforms, etc. that directly or indirectly rely on their function.
Ironically everyone loves data centers, as long as their function is sufficiently obscured and they are located "somewhere else". This movement thrives on the extremely low intelligence of its constituents, who don't seem to understand how the Internet and its applications they use, work.
Local politicians and commissioners also seem to be poorly suited to understanding the impact of data centers on their surrounding environs, being lured (as usual) by overly optimistic estimates of jobs and revenues.
> which has devolved into a non-specific cause-of-the-day for stay-at-home moms to complain about
This is a deeply uncharitable interpretation of people speaking up when there isn't anyone else speaking up for them.
Does the author not understand what a tax break is? Tax payers are not giving billions of dollars to the company building a data center.