That is also approximately what people have always done to succeed.

No, you are not wrong. If you now crack the "What is?" in a generalizable way, there is very good money in that.

> The coolest thing I had it do for me was sourcing fabric for swag

That seems like something codex could just have done on my laptop. Am I wrong?

(I am jesting. Fuck telemarketing.)

So why the change of heart? Well, it's not. They are simply not able to compete anywhere on the Pareto frontier. So they give their relatively bad stuff away and play the high and mighty game, because that's all they can do to get returns.

Not a great look – and I would expect that to last about as long as they can't actually monetize their stuff more effectively.

It's not terrible to not make a good point, but it's not a good point. The not good points should not be ranked highly.

Nothing. You would do nothing.

You want both to stay, because you also don't enjoy losing any amount of money, and not doing anything is most likely going to get you that.

From the "I'll get you thrown out"-party, it's the same tactic again, directed at the landlord this time. Moving buildings is neither fun nor cheap. Your employees would have to go somewhere else, there might not be anywhere else close by that is convenient to you or as nice/familiar as the place you got, some people might quit over any annoyance this brings too.

Nobody enjoys this shit. There are contracts. There are lawyers. It's never fun to do these things and it can all be dragged out for a long time. Being a somewhat bigger renter is (fortunately) not something that helps you in a court of law.

> Regardless : 'I'm a renter' is by no means a strong argument unless you have a very specifically worded renter agreement

It's a very strong default argument, unless you have a specifically worded agreement, that would strip you of a potential right.

The reason is that a lot of people do cave. "Free" wins. If it does not work, they just pretend nothing happened.

I don't understand what "despite this" is doing here. People have thoughts about what good/bad policy should be, independent of what good/bad policy should do all the time.

This is not an argument for or against data centers, but rather against populism. People have too many feeling about too many things, that should simply should not be decided by feel (and, sometimes, not enough about things that should).

So the most interesting thing to take away from this: There is a lot of demand for more power and in this instance it's satisfied by gas. Which is still much better than coal. Which is still much worse than renewables.

I think the question, that we keep stumbling over, is what problems are computable.

> But if these things were as revolutionary as people promote/fear them to be, you should immediately point them at the highest value math problems and see progress. Like the Millenium Prize problems. Haven’t seen a solution to those.

Let the goalpost shifting continue. It'll buy us another half year or so.

You can do many more things, when stuff is cheaper, even if the stuff were otherwise unchanged.

Regulation can and often most certainly does hinder innovation -- but we might want that, because we get other things we value in return.

Regulation can sometimes also further innovation (one example being property rights). It depends on what is being regulated and how.

I never understand why people make obviously false claims when trying to argue a position. Instead of making the bad case, just try a bit harder, like you ask of these CEOs, and make a good one.

"Not a requirement under GDPR", yes, but certainly not "nothing to do with GDPR". It directly has to do with GDPR, in conjunction with business' decisions and how to comply with the law.

And of course, we can then argue our faces off about what's good and necessary in the world, in businesses and data protection, but saying it has nothing to do with it is just wrong.