These kinds of generalizations are so ridiculous as to be completely useless. You keep saying that we're blocking "everything"... what? Nobody is claiming that we need to stop building (in your words) "literally everything". This is called a "straw man".

> But it turns out there's a middle ground between "Mass cancer and death" and "total ban on new things."

Yes, and environmental impact studies move us away from the "mass cancer and death" while still allowing "things" to be built.

> what about Datacenters is uniquely bad

- Excessive water consumption which is especially bad in areas that experience droughts

- Excessive electricity consumption which strains power grids which have not had time to adapt (also causing wildly increased bills for local residents)

- Continuous operation which exacerbates the above issues (compared to "factories, malls, golf courses, pools, etc" which largely operate for only a portion of the day)

- More land use, making the nearby land uninhabitable due to noise as well as other environmental impacts for local wildlife

> Or do you not like the idea of resource usage at all, even if residential and renewable? Are we afraid of wasting the sun's precious energy? I'm struggling to understand.

I'm struggling to understand where on earth you got this? It seems like you're just inventing arguments to debate against. I never said anything like this.

Not sure if you're aware of this, but a large portion of the infrastructure that was built before environmental impact studies existed caused severe health issues for the surrounding communities, including cancer and death. That's why we have environmental impact studies now.

If there were proper studies on the environmental and economic impacts, instead of blindly building without due diligence. The issue is that data centers are being built without this kind of analysis, at huge cost to the surrounding communities.

> One of the most bizarre contradictions of this current moment is the simultaneous anger at things being expensive and also anger towards building anything.

This seems like you're being purposefully obtuse, given the context in long thread you're replying to. It's not against "building anything", it's data centers which harm the surrounding communities.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48835801

Points: 2

# Comments: 1

> The Court held that police conducted a Fourth Amendment search when they obtained Chatrie's location data, because, as the opinion put it, "an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his cell-phone location information."

The analogue with Flock is pretty clear then:

> Just as important as the holding is the reasoning: the Court rejected the government's fallback argument that the search was fine because it only pulled a narrow, time-limited slice of a much larger dataset. Once the Fourth Amendment applies, the majority reasoned, it doesn't matter how small a bite investigators took out of an all-encompassing database.

> Defense attorneys argued that many of the risks to people stuck in traffic could have been mitigated — including the traffic itself — if the median had been moved to open a fourth lane on the southbound side. They said a protester designated to communicate with the CHP specifically asked for that to happen to allow emergency vehicles to access anyone who needed one.

> Northbound traffic was also stopped by the CHP as a multitude of emergency vehicles responded to the bridge, which defense attorneys pointed out would have created the same type of risks the prosecution said people were experiencing because of the protesters.

https://localnewsmatters.org/2026/05/29/gaza-protesters-gold...

This is a description of your stance on Alex Pretti.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48479152

Points: 8

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48468789

Points: 98

# Comments: 43

> The organization has attracted attention for publishing false or inaccurate articles, some of which were shared widely.

> The Gatestone Institute has been frequently described as anti-Muslim, regularly publishes false reports to stoke anti-Muslim fears, and has published false stories pertaining to Muslims and Islam.

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatestone_Institute

The US and Israel have repeatedly claimed that schools and hospitals are legitimate military targets with no evidence. A highly partisan think tank which is known for putting out misinformation is not a valid source.

If you're going to destroy hospitals and target civilian infrastructure and kill children, you should be accountable on a world stage and provide evidence. Unless you would you accept Iran bombing elementary schools in the US because they claim to have intel that there are terrorists hiding under them?

- Why didn't SPD commission an independent study?

- What kinds of crimes were studied? Is this catching jaywalkers or homicides?

- Only mentions arrests. What about convictions? How are victims receiving justice?

- Where's the data and the reproducible methodology?

- How many people were tracked who didn't commit any crime at all?

There's so much wrong with that article that it's hard to come to any verifiable conclusions about the efficacy of the program. And again, doesn't answer any of the original questions.

- is trivially defeated by teenagers

- is used by police departments as evidence to legally justify violent raids for property damage

- whose data is mishandled by law enforcement agencies who don't do due diligence

... should have more widespread adoption and support?