← Back to context

Comment by BugsJustFindMe

4 days ago

You are engaging with a straw man that is literally the opposite of what I said. I said it would be possible and reasonable to mandate it, not intentionally look the other way, and not cross fingers and hope for beneficence.

It is the government that mandates things. Even in this article, it was the local council that sold them out.

  • > it was the local council that sold them out

    You're still not engaging with what I said. Please see that "this government chose not to mandate" has zero relevance to whether a government mandate would be possible or reasonable.

    I said "[datacenters] don't need to [increase electricity costs for others]. It would be possible to mandate...".

    I said that because the person I was responding to said "a datacenter increases electricity costs for the region".

    It CAN increase electricity costs for the region. It does not NEED to increase electricity costs for the region. And PREVENTION of increasing electricity costs for the region CAN be done by government mandate instead of hoping for profiteers to do less profiteering.

    What this particular city council did with this datacenter is neither an inherent property of datacenters nor of city councils.

    • > Please see that "there was no government mandate" is not the same as "a government mandate isn't possible".

      I agree with this, a government mandate is absolutely possible. But I am also saying that they will never choose to do it.

      3 replies →

    • You: "we should make this entity who's supposedly got the people's interest in mind extract concessions"

      Them: "That entity seems to backstab the people every chance it gets"

      You: "You're missing my point, the government could do it"

      Perhaps you're missing the point. It's not that they can't. It's that they won't or they'll screw it up and defeat the point.

      2 replies →