The emissions per kWh of energy used in providing internet downloads probably is similar to that per kWh of energy used for washing clothes.

( https://apollojournals.org/afj/ap10fj/as10-day2-pt9.html )

It can be found in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQVEsfa15SY

There is nothing in the DPA implying companies it is applied to can't be acting in a hostile manner, or that it can't be applied when security interests of the US are being threatened. Of course they have no reason to state such a distinction repeatedly in law (claiming it doesn't apply to adversarial companies....), but 50 USC 4566 applies clearly when acts are being made against national interest (this pertains to foreign investment, which isn't the nature of the Anthropic rift, but shows clearly the DPA contains laws with intent of preventing adversarial action against the US).

Even without knowing the intent of the behaviour, it should be quite clear that companies that are vital to national security are more likely to be supply chain risks. Amodei's direct words were: > These latter two threats are inherently contradictory: one labels us a security risk; the other labels Claude as essential to national security. Being a security risk and essential to national security are not "inherently contradictory".

It is clear that the DPA can be invoked for companies posing risks to national security:

> On October 30, 2023, President Biden invoked the Defense Production Act to "require that developers of the most powerful AI systems share their safety test results and other critical information with the U.S. government" when "developing any foundation model that poses a serious risk to national security, national economic security, or national public health."

Furthermore, it should be quite obvious that companies very important for national security can act in manners causing them to be national security risks, meaning a varied approach is required.

Lot costs, builder profits, indirect labour (commissioning, financial and legal affairs, advertising) all are far less affected by tariffs. Machine costs could make up 15% of your "labour and material" cost but depreciation and repair purchases are still only 30% of this, with of course not all of this affected by tariffs.

It seems wholly reasonable to believe that the long term effects of a tariff policy like these on housing costs could indeed be in the ballpark of 5%, as I claim, because in fact housing development is less affected by this.

I'm not sure if you trust this for consensus, but you could try asking an AI to give an estimate of the long-term impact for you. Here's what Gemini 3 Pro said to "Estimate the increase Trump's current tariffs, if long term, would have on price of new housing developments."

> Total Home Price Impact: This translates to a roughly 3% to 4% increase in the final purchase price for the consumer.

The finished products tariff was delayed: https://edition.cnn.com/2026/01/01/business/trump-furniture-... For unfinished lumber, I don't think there was any tariff going into effect January 1.

Sure, these tariffs may further increase the house of prices (e.g. be relevant to 15% of the cost of the house, with tariffs ranging from 20% to 50% and sources of materials adjusting to these tariffs), but the say 4% future effect of these tariffs is likely less than the effect of zoning laws, other development restrictions, and rent freezing.

"President Donald Trump has delayed new tariff increases on upholstered furniture, kitchen cabinets, and vanities for a year, pushing their implementation to 2027, according to a White House statement."

Concrete, gypsum and steel are primarily domestically produced. Similar goes for wood (although a substantial amount is imported, e.g. from Canada - the tariffs range from 25% to 50%). Labour & Materials may make up say 60% of the cost of a house, but only 50% of this is likely materials, with likely a minority of the materials tariffed.

What is likely to actually reduce rent and house prices is making development permission and laws more lax, as well as preventing rent control.

You can just look through the old white house accounts. For example this tweet https://x.com/WhiteHouse46/status/1879171105044181097 , "While Congressional Republicans refused to pass a bipartisan border security agreement, President Biden took action and encounters today are the lowest since July 2020."

Looking through the tweets, you'll see it's not nonpartisan and isn't supposed to be.

Although there are probably more contentious case with other government agencies.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44969589

Points: 4

# Comments: 1

Likely because of the polemics of the article and its headline, many people in this thread are misinformed as to what Starbuck's role will be and that this came about as the result of a settlement.

There is also the joint statement posted by Joel Kaplan on X (likely the source for many articles): https://x.com/joel_kaplan/status/1953778908915982793 "Building on that work, Meta and Robby Starbuck will work collaboratively in the coming months to continue to find ways to address issues of ideological and political bias and minimize the risk that the model returns hallucinations in response to user queries."

The headline focusses on polemics and omits a detail many people would find quite important: that this was part of a lawsuit settlement. It also decides to use the word "appoint", which has a stronger underlying implication that Starbuck will have a job at / take a significant role in doing this at Meta.

It is important that this information is shared, but it is better if it's done accurately. I don't see why the source that Pinknews used itself, https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/meta-robby-starbuck-ai-lawsuit-s..., wasn't used instead.

I simply don't want to be forced to provide my ID / face to be able to read or access politically important news on social media. Some people would be happier if the bill was limited to only pornography: they likely don't think it has a major effect on UK politics.

> The carbon intensity of electricity used by data centers was 48% higher than the US average.

Also, for other commenters: the 2832 children number I believe comes from the supplemental content from the supplemental material for the NTP Fluoride Monograph: https://cdn.jamanetwork.com/ama/content_public/journal/peds/... (this url is very long because of some hashing measure, sorry: if it is no longer accessible, it is the supplemental content for doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2024.5542), on page 51 of the PDF. I have a small summary table of data I view relevant here:

The columns are:

* Studies used; Fluoride Exposure; Number of Studies / Number of Observations (number of Children)

* Estimate for slope in linear Model, given as increase in IQ points per mg/L increase (95% CI) (p value)

All studies; < 2mg/L; 8 / 10 (N = 3682); -0.18 (-0.40, 0.03) (p = 0.096)

All studies; < 1.5mg/L; 7 / 7 (N = 2832); 0.05 (-0.36, 0.45) (p = 0.816)

Low risk of bias studies; < 2mg/L; 4 / 5 (N = 1632); -0.33 (-0.53, -0.13) (p = 0.001)

Low risk of bias studies; < 1.5mg/L; 3 / 3 (N = 879); -0.32 (-0.91, 0.26) (p = 0.276)