>If someone wants to risk their own property, as long as they don't risk harming anyone, why not allow it? Because it's a flawed premise, you don't exist in is

>If someone wants to risk their own property, as long as they don't risk harming anyone, why not allow it? Because it's a flawed premise, you don't exist in isolation from the outside world. The smoke is harmful to everyone nearby, especially a data center fire where you have burning servers, UPS batteries, etc. contributing large quantities of burning cadmium, lead, mercury, assorted plastics and so on. The environmental impact from the fire event alone should make this a non-starter. Also, little to nothing can be recycled after such an event, and replacing the lost equipment requires a whole bunch of environmentally damaging mining and manufacturing processes. >no risk to neighbouring properties. Even if you plan carefully there is an unacceptable risk of fire spreading. And while some datacenters are moving to the countryside or aquatic environments, most are in built up areas for easy access to industrial power supply, workers, spare parts, freight, etc... And I have no confidence that a company who's disaster plan is "screw it, let it all burn" would adequately maintain firebreaks and other containment measures. Frankly, I find the very idea of such excessive and deliberately considered wastefulness to be grotesque.