3 ms·
The headline sounds a lot more supervillain-ish than the article. Probably done on purpose in pursuit of the almighty click.
by mlfreeman 3y ago
The headline sounds a lot more supervillain-ish than the article. Probably done on purpose in pursuit of the almighty click.
- Dylan16807 3y agoWhat's supervillain-ish about a company owning a datacenter and adjacent power plant?
- TaylorAlexander 3y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mister_Atom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mister_Atom
- Dylan16807 3y agoIs the implication that nuclear power plants are inherently supervillainous? If amazon buys a power plant, my only thoughts about an increase in villainy from the status quo fall into the "monopoly" category.
- preisschild 3y agoNah But Dr. No had a pool type reactor :D
- TaylorAlexander 3y agoI mean, I take the comment about supervillains as mostly a joke, so I don’t really feel a need to strictly interrogate it for factual accuracy. But also I do think it fits. Looking at super villains, they’re usually just powerful people with slightly unusual property, who also happen to be evil. Lex Luthor’s company Lexcorp was an aerospace company. In the first Superman movie, Luthor was a pretty weird and relatively unremarkable guy. In the James Bond movie Tomorrow Never Dies the super villain was just a guy with a global media company who created calamity and murder so that he could report on it first. Nuclear power and radiation have often been themes for comic book heroes and villains. I think it’s reasonable to read the (misleading) headline and think “oh great now Bezos owns a nuclear power plant, he’s going to become a super villain” as the sort of non-serious comment prevalent on the internet. People say the same about Musk all the time. I don’t think it’s meant to be taken literally.