I think anybody with a gripe about "mainstream media" should really examine who owns most of the media (billionaires) and see the value in enforcing that more indepedent voices are heard, not less as the past three decades has been a relentless march towards.

The whole idea with the advent of the internet was that there would be so many more ways to be heard. That's been kinda true, but the public airwaves are dominated by corporate voices.

Belts will burn through polycarb if it isn't tracking properly. They are strong enough to deform any pulley mount on a tight fit.

Only minor complaint is that the teeth will slip if you don't have a ton of them engaged (or they are excessively loose) but otherwise they are amazingly useful.

It's not blaming. It's an explanation for probably why things can go wrong.

DCs operate at the scale of agriculture, even this one will consume/expel significant resources.

Are they asking for treated water? What's the concentration of residual metals, bromine and salts? Who is monitoring it?

It's inconvenient. Think of it as tech debt. You can either pay it down now, or you pay it down later.

Nothing dumber than reallocating resources thouands of miles away from where they should be.

Exactly my sentiment. I don't even understand how this is controversial. The only ones who don't seem to get it are everyone making the plans (including the folks in government)

They're just trying to reduce the risk and lead time to gain an advantage. I'm a huge AI supporter and there's no way to advocate for them. They've just blown all the good will out of the water.

If you believe corporations are people.

Even billionaires really don't operate as individuals, they are a monster that we've let grow to have unchecked power across the entire federal government.

(note, I may be agreeing with what you're saying I just don't agree with the framing of the "individual") Most of the pushback belongs against the entities that are more powerful than even the federal government at times.)

I think these corporations do a lot of harm to their own arguments.

[1] - https://www.8newsnow.com/news/local-news/data-center-develop...

> what a patronizing and absurd reply

I had to double check my replies! The author, nor me implied it wasn't about being male, in fact it is explicitly called out. Check out this question:

"would you agree that there are differences in the sexes? A different set of biases even?"

What mindless twaddle aren't you tolerating?

Read it again. They narrow it two ways in addition to being male:

"0. but the main reason is that they are, overwhelmingly, males 1. who come from narrow Stem (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) backgrounds 2. and are trapped in a particular mindset that the technology writer Evgeny Morozov called “solutionism”.

It's not that they are male, it males who come from Stem with a particular solution oriented mindset. I think in a different context you would be less offended. We are talking about driven, solution oriented people. It's a bias. Biases are fine, we all have them, this article is just talking about it.

I could ask again, would you agree that there are differences in the sexes? A different set of biases even?

> the main reason is that they are, overwhelmingly, males

Was that intentional? Do you disagree that tech is overwhelmingly male?

Do you happen to be someone who believes in differences in the sexes? Just curious.

Is it really though if we're getting thousands of compromised packages regularly?

You can do all the right things and still be legit problematic.

So much this. I've never touched the Chinese models (no particular reason) but it is having an impact as the frontier companies are pushing the price down as a defensive measure. Is this pulling forward what would have happened eventually? No idea.

It is unclear how effective anyone beyond China and Mistral have been at developing cheaper, capable models. It is an expensive business. I'd be curious if anyone had any thoughts on that