3 ms·

Are you saying that the fact that tech companies presumably run the numbers and decided to invest in nuclear is the argument? That basically amounts to saying "

Are you saying that the fact that tech companies presumably run the numbers and decided to invest in nuclear is the argument? That basically amounts to saying "you don't need to see the data, just trust these guys' evaluation of the data". For most of us the compelling argument would be the underlying data and decision making that Amazon made, not the outcome of Amazon's decision alone.

nobodyandproud 2y ago
I’m not sure what you’re asking here. If big tech are rational actors—and I see no reason to believe otherwise—then they must have compelling reasons to think that their future growth of AI data centers can’t be met by renewables alone. At least not cost effectively. Why? It’s not proof that renewables aren’t enough but it’s compelling enough evidence to investigate further. Finally: I also don’t know who “most of us” is; who do you believe you speak for?
- advisedwang 2y ago
  All I'm saying is if their reasons are so good, then those reasons should be the argument itself, not that amazon decided to go that path. I'd rather hear the case, than hear that some judge heard the case in secret and trust their conclusion.Especially as what is a strong case for amazon may including things irrelevant or outright mis-aligned to the public interest though.
  - nobodyandproud 2y ago
    Wait, you're actually asking for proprietary analysis and data? If I were in a position to have that data or any inside information--and I'm not, thankfully--I certainly wouldn't provide it in Hacker News. I'm not going to pursue this argument further with you. Edit: On the off-chance you're a journalist--because I do know a few who lurk here, though they'll never admit it--then consider this a compelling line of thought and evidence to do some actual legwork.

3 ms·

Are you saying that the fact that tech companies presumably run the numbers and decided to invest in nuclear is the argument? That basically amounts to saying "

by advisedwang 2y ago

nobodyandproud 2y ago
I’m not sure what you’re asking here. If big tech are rational actors—and I see no reason to believe otherwise—then they must have compelling reasons to think that their future growth of AI data centers can’t be met by renewables alone. At least not cost effectively. Why? It’s not proof that renewables aren’t enough but it’s compelling enough evidence to investigate further. Finally: I also don’t know who “most of us” is; who do you believe you speak for?
- advisedwang 2y ago
  All I'm saying is if their reasons are so good, then those reasons should be the argument itself, not that amazon decided to go that path. I'd rather hear the case, than hear that some judge heard the case in secret and trust their conclusion.Especially as what is a strong case for amazon may including things irrelevant or outright mis-aligned to the public interest though.
  - nobodyandproud 2y ago
    Wait, you're actually asking for proprietary analysis and data? If I were in a position to have that data or any inside information--and I'm not, thankfully--I certainly wouldn't provide it in Hacker News. I'm not going to pursue this argument further with you. Edit: On the off-chance you're a journalist--because I do know a few who lurk here, though they'll never admit it--then consider this a compelling line of thought and evidence to do some actual legwork.