durdenhobbes
No bio...
User ID: 1307
Doing a barrel roll with a passenger plane has likely never been done before
The aggregate demand is what affects prices and impact; one single facility is irrelevant.
Independent power or not, the fuel source has to come from somewhere, and these things have enormous power requirements; like, potentially more than your entire state currently generates. Given the laws of supply and demand, there is no earthly way they won't increase energy costs for consumers (barring government intervention).
If there's an enormous car factory in his town, he either works at it or knows scores of people who do. It's easy to see the benefit.
The benefit to an enormous loud data center that employs next to no one, and potentially triples your electric bill? Yeah obviously that's not gonna go over as well.
Agreed, I can't help but question the methodology of this poll, if only in the sense that it might outrank any other poll in terms of dissonance between its assertions versus personal observations.
Are you including smartphones and tablets in your definition of “computer”?
Certainly. Pretty much any internet-accessible device is a computer, in my mind. Hell the TI-84+ has an argument to make.
Beyond that: yes I have a very old soul, as well as relatives who typically live into their 90s. So I'm sure that skews my perspective on the technological adoption curve.
But I still don't believe that half of Americans are intentionally accessing LLMs or generative A.I. Not even close.
What did you think takeoff meant? Vibes? Papers?
I don't know what you mean by this, unless it's an "exponential adoption curve spurred by the inevitable singularity"-type of way, which I don't want to assume.
I mentioned previous in this thread to the parent comment: I'm not sure we're both using "A.I" in the same way. Speech-to-text functionality? I completely believe that half of people use that. He told me that Siri/Alexa/Google Home were not "A.I", so I struggle to see how speech-to-text (a far older technology) qualifies.
For clarification: when I say "A.I.", I am referring to Claude/Gemini/ChatGPT LLMs, accessed with intention, likely with a paid subscription (at least if the user has any seriousness).
You seem to be, perhaps, missing my point. It's not a matter of whether a given field of expertise is more or less important; it's a matter of "can I see the value of this in my day-to-day life".
Obviously (I think), the average person in 2026 can identify the value of a machining factory moreso than he can a data center.
Huh? The prominence of the AI boom is largely a post Covid phenomenon.
Ok, well then my point is that I can't think of any other technology in history that has achieved 50 percent market penetration in 3-4 years. I just checked Google Trends for both "A.I" and "LLM", and they both start to take off in early 2023, which was about how I remembered when I first started hearing about them.
So, when I say "A.I", I mean specifically utilizing Claude/ChatGPT/Gemini/etc. HALF of Americans are doing this weekly? My circle must just be in the stone age, then, because I still know multiple people who don't own computers.
Really?? Again, maybe I'm not thinking broadly enough about what "AI" is defined as. I suppose it would include things like Alexa/Google Home/Siri? We called those "voice assistants" in my day.
I wasn't even hearing the term "A.I." as anything other than the movie (or Allen Iverson) in any remotely mainstream sense, unless post-Covid.
My vintage Land Cruiser doesn't have software, nor does my record player, my guitar, my film camera, or my porch swing.
And you know what? I'm a helluva lot happier when I'm using any of those things that I am using just about anything with software.
In my day we called them R/C helicopters server farms
I found this study absolutely impossible to believe; I'm a Millennial who's on the internet way too much and have been since the early 90s, and I've never used AI.
But then I remembered that Google force-feeds you an AI answer when you use the search bar the same way you've been doing for 30 years. So, touché. I'll still defend the fact that it's not something that most people go out of their way to intentionally engage with.
I was having similar thoughts last night when evaluating this race. Let's just say that I could've written your post verbatim.
What is the right time, if not now? Waiting until after trillions of dollars have already been consumed?
Cost-benefit in business and life generally has to be fairly forward-looking. And there are plenty of conversations to be had, beyond the actual capabilities of the software itself. For example, is there any infrastructure plan in place for actually powering all these things without frying the grid and/or driving energy costs to Neptune?
Yeah, but I'm not even sure that the entire history of personal computing has consumed 474 gigawatts of power in a single state. The massive demand for resources and accommodations should rightly be scrutinized through cost-benefit analyses and public discussion.
There are 1.84 million software developers in the U.S., so roughly half a percent of the population. I suspect most of these are heavily concentrated on the coasts, rather than scattered throughout the areas of the country most of these data centers are going.
Joe Six-Pack probably knows umpteen different welders, heavy equipment operators, machinists, and he certainly knows plenty of people who drive cars. He's probably never met a software developer, nor does he see any reason to. In his mind (and many others), AI might as well be fictitious.
Because everyone gets an equal vote, and I'll bet less than 5% of people have ever used AI in any form, and even fewer have found it repetitiously valuable.
Seconded. When it's part of your daily carry, it doesn't always register that it won't be allowed quite everywhere you go.
I did manage to convince an NHL stadium to let me coat check my knife at the customer service desk, once I gave them my business card and explained that I made these for a living.
As a knifemaker who finds them incredibly handy to have, I think you're painting with far too broad a brush.
One of the lesser-talked about aspects of the World Cup is the forced stadium rebrandings due to FIFA's unwillingness to allow reference to any corporate names that aren't official FIFA sponsors. In many cases, this just involved covering up signage around the stadium, although some cases were more extreme.
For anyone who works in or around this industry, is this commonly-accepted practice for anyone outside of FIFA? I can't imagine spending millions of dollars on a stadium sponsorship, and being too pleased with having all my branding covered. While I'm sure there was some sort of contractual fine print that allowed for this, I'd still be pissed.
It also led me to wonder: could this be extended to other sectors of the economy? Say, Google Maps decides not to reference any corporate sponsorships that don't do enough AdWords business, or channel 5 news blurs out corporate logos unless they pony up. Seems like you could quickly fracture the entire landscape of corporate sponsorships.
YMMV depending on your pet issue(s), but given the current 15 percent Congressional approval rating (which is actually up 5 points from the 10 percent in April!), I'd wager that there isn't a single age demographic that feels they are being well-served.
Given the complete unwillingness of U.S. politicians to place American citizens' interests first (even when they campaign on virtually that exact slogan), I am forced to conclude that it does not matter who is in office; the country is not run by or for the American people.
The bladesmith/blacksmith community is incredibly cooperative and supportive.
- Prev
- Next

And don't you dare speak trainly.
More options
Context Copy link