3 ms·

remember guys, cut your beef consumption, drive less and have fewer foreign holidays (preferably none) this will allow the hyperscalers to build more DCs to ma

remember guys, cut your beef consumption, drive less and have fewer foreign holidays (preferably none) this will allow the hyperscalers to build more DCs to make you completely redundant, so that bezos can have a 3rd fleet of jets

Spivak 1y ago
This implies that Amazon is The Paperclip AI and is just building data centers for no purpose and isn't using them or is using them for non-productive means like Bezos' gaming rig. But they're not, they're building out data centers because the world demands more AWS capacity. Shouldering the emissions from this on Amazon, unless you believe they're being particularly inefficient about it, is shooting the messenger.
- itake 1y ago
  We are in the early phase of VC fueled pollution. Its the same as when Uber launched. VCs suppress prices, to create demand ($5 Uber rides anywhere in the city) which generates more transactions, which generates more pollution. Instead of a alternative lower cost transportation (like BART or muni), SF residents chose the highest environmental impact and lowest cost option.
  - wskinner 1y ago
    Amazon’s capex is not funded by venture capital. It is funded by people buying things from Amazon or services from AWS. Uber hasn’t raised from VCs in years, and their business is far bigger than it was back when they were losing money. The idea that SF residents choose to use Uber rather than BART because Uber is cheaper is simply wrong - Uber is much more expensive than BART, and with some notable exceptions for shared rides, that was true during the VC funded growth period as well.
    - itake 1y ago
      It doesn't matter the source of the capital. VCs, public companies, bank loans, public or private investors. it doesn't matter. The cost of these services is artificially suppressed to drive adoption, at the cost of our environment. > The idea that SF residents choose to use Uber rather than BART because Uber is cheaper is simply wrong When I lived in SF. Uber and Lyft cost between free and $5 to go anywhere in the city. Yes, $5 is more than the $2.75. But for price of a cup of coffee more, Uber would pick you up and drop you off exactly where you needed. Taking muni or bart involved walking, waiting, more waiting, and then more walking.
      - wskinner 1y ago
        > Taking muni or bart involved walking, waiting, more waiting, and then more walking Exactly. Uber makes a lot of money these days. The price is not suppressed. And yet... it is more popular than ever. Prices were artificially low for awhile in order to bootstrap the market, and that worked, and now that the market has been established, prices are at a level that is sustainable. Your whole premise is wrong.
        itake 1y ago
        It’s so weird that you’re like agreeing with me but then at the very end you say my promise is wrong. Can you pick a lane? Currently prices are artificially low for AI in order to boot shop the market. Artificially low prices increase demand which increases environmental impact. If you rewind the clock to an Uber launched in San Francisco you would see the exact same playbook: artificially low prices, bootstrapping the market, increase demand, and increase environmental impact. Your whole premise keeps flip flopping.
- asdff 1y ago
  Part of the reason why they demand more aws capacity is from being marketed aws capacity. Additionally the elephant of the room of AI also something being marketed towards these companies. Really the only reason why we don't consider making light websites and tooling these days like in the past where hardware constraints mandated it, is that all we think it is unsexy. That is it. All this waste for a sexy css and an ai app. Funny how we make a big stink of only calling libraries we actually use in code then we reach for a chatbot trained on all the corpus of man to tell us how many oz in a cup.
userbinator 1y ago
[flagged]
pton_xd 1y ago
also flush less and get a no-flow shower head, those chips need all the water they can get!
- belter 1y ago
  Most dont realize data centers mostly must use potable water, so they put additional stress on the public drinkable water system. "Data Center Water Usage: A Comprehensive Guide" - https://dgtlinfra.com/data-center-water-usage/ https://dgtlinfra.com/data-center-water-usage/ https://www.businessinsider.com/how-data-centers-are-deepening-the-water-crisis-2025-6 https://www.businessinsider.com/how-data-centers-are-deepeni...
gruez 1y ago
>remember guys, cut your beef consumption, drive less and have fewer foreign holidays (preferably none) >this will allow the hyperscalers to build more DCs [...] This juxtaposition makes zero sense because the datacenters are getting built regardless of whether people are eating beef or not. By and large, there's no global cap on carbon, so everyone is free to emit whatever they want, and someone eating less beef isn't allowing amazon to train more AI models or vice versa.
- melling 1y ago
  It’s sarcasm. Poe’s Law? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law
  - gruez 1y ago
    Maybe OP doesn't literally think amazon had to convince some people to not eat beef to get the datacenter built, but it's pretty obvious that the underlying sentiment of "we're making sacrifices so amazon can build a datacenter" is sincere. But that doesn't make much sense either, because the two things (ie. guy eating beef, amazon build datacenter) is totally unrelated. Doing one isn't enabling or preventing the other.
    - melling 1y ago
      I have no idea how many times it has been explained that the “self-sacrifice “ method isn’t going to make a difference. People who don’t understand the scale of the problem came up with that.

Spivak 1y ago

This implies that Amazon is The Paperclip AI and is just building data centers for no purpose and isn't using them or is using them for non-productive means like Bezos' gaming rig. But they're not, they're building out data centers because the world demands more AWS capacity. Shouldering the emissions from this on Amazon, unless you believe they're being particularly inefficient about it, is shooting the messenger.

itake 1y ago
We are in the early phase of VC fueled pollution. Its the same as when Uber launched. VCs suppress prices, to create demand ($5 Uber rides anywhere in the city) which generates more transactions, which generates more pollution. Instead of a alternative lower cost transportation (like BART or muni), SF residents chose the highest environmental impact and lowest cost option.
- wskinner 1y ago
  Amazon’s capex is not funded by venture capital. It is funded by people buying things from Amazon or services from AWS. Uber hasn’t raised from VCs in years, and their business is far bigger than it was back when they were losing money. The idea that SF residents choose to use Uber rather than BART because Uber is cheaper is simply wrong - Uber is much more expensive than BART, and with some notable exceptions for shared rides, that was true during the VC funded growth period as well.
  - itake 1y ago
    It doesn't matter the source of the capital. VCs, public companies, bank loans, public or private investors. it doesn't matter. The cost of these services is artificially suppressed to drive adoption, at the cost of our environment. > The idea that SF residents choose to use Uber rather than BART because Uber is cheaper is simply wrong When I lived in SF. Uber and Lyft cost between free and $5 to go anywhere in the city. Yes, $5 is more than the $2.75. But for price of a cup of coffee more, Uber would pick you up and drop you off exactly where you needed. Taking muni or bart involved walking, waiting, more waiting, and then more walking.
    - wskinner 1y ago
      > Taking muni or bart involved walking, waiting, more waiting, and then more walking Exactly. Uber makes a lot of money these days. The price is not suppressed. And yet... it is more popular than ever. Prices were artificially low for awhile in order to bootstrap the market, and that worked, and now that the market has been established, prices are at a level that is sustainable. Your whole premise is wrong.
      - itake 1y ago
        It’s so weird that you’re like agreeing with me but then at the very end you say my promise is wrong. Can you pick a lane? Currently prices are artificially low for AI in order to boot shop the market. Artificially low prices increase demand which increases environmental impact. If you rewind the clock to an Uber launched in San Francisco you would see the exact same playbook: artificially low prices, bootstrapping the market, increase demand, and increase environmental impact. Your whole premise keeps flip flopping.
asdff 1y ago
Part of the reason why they demand more aws capacity is from being marketed aws capacity. Additionally the elephant of the room of AI also something being marketed towards these companies. Really the only reason why we don't consider making light websites and tooling these days like in the past where hardware constraints mandated it, is that all we think it is unsexy. That is it. All this waste for a sexy css and an ai app. Funny how we make a big stink of only calling libraries we actually use in code then we reach for a chatbot trained on all the corpus of man to tell us how many oz in a cup.

userbinator 1y ago

[flagged]

pton_xd 1y ago

also flush less and get a no-flow shower head, those chips need all the water they can get!

belter 1y ago
Most dont realize data centers mostly must use potable water, so they put additional stress on the public drinkable water system. "Data Center Water Usage: A Comprehensive Guide" - https://dgtlinfra.com/data-center-water-usage/ https://dgtlinfra.com/data-center-water-usage/ https://www.businessinsider.com/how-data-centers-are-deepening-the-water-crisis-2025-6 https://www.businessinsider.com/how-data-centers-are-deepeni...

gruez 1y ago

>remember guys, cut your beef consumption, drive less and have fewer foreign holidays (preferably none) >this will allow the hyperscalers to build more DCs [...] This juxtaposition makes zero sense because the datacenters are getting built regardless of whether people are eating beef or not. By and large, there's no global cap on carbon, so everyone is free to emit whatever they want, and someone eating less beef isn't allowing amazon to train more AI models or vice versa.

melling 1y ago
It’s sarcasm. Poe’s Law? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law
- gruez 1y ago
  Maybe OP doesn't literally think amazon had to convince some people to not eat beef to get the datacenter built, but it's pretty obvious that the underlying sentiment of "we're making sacrifices so amazon can build a datacenter" is sincere. But that doesn't make much sense either, because the two things (ie. guy eating beef, amazon build datacenter) is totally unrelated. Doing one isn't enabling or preventing the other.
  - melling 1y ago
    I have no idea how many times it has been explained that the “self-sacrifice “ method isn’t going to make a difference. People who don’t understand the scale of the problem came up with that.