A significant factor in vapes not overtaking cigarettes is the tobacco lobby; they pay to play in legislature to ban vapes and associated paraphernalia in many US states, as well as create their own vape products to play both sides of the market. It's difficult to use vapes to quit smoking cigarettes when vape juice and single use vapes get banned, yet cigarettes remain legal.
"I am not <this thing>, but if I were, I'd have <this opionion> about it." isn't a terribly convincing argument. Opinions (good ones, at least) are shaped by experience - what experience is there to shape your opinion on AI affecting art when you aren't an artist?
People could return to burning down enterprises that they find unsavory or detrimental to society, such as they did during the industrial revolution, but this is problematic in that it's violent and not something the modern person often considers as viable. A part of why people consider this unviable now is in-part due to the consequences of these surveilance technologies. It's difficult to accomplish a revolution when everyone is being spied on all the time.
The shortest path answer is a bit too caveman-esque to survive its application to reality.
That said, I think there is a lot of appeal to go hunting for firms, since it really feels like corporations and their owners are engaging in predatory behavior as opposed to customer centric behavior.
>this is going to be a massive business liability.
No. this is going to go "unnoticed" or at least unactioned. These are surveilance devices - compromising their value as source of surveilance is neither in the interest of industry (who are selling and buying the surveilance) or government (who are buying and acting on it). The age of shame is over. Current world goernments have flourished under the premise of being terrible, horrible, awful, evil enterprises that do bad for the sake of either being bad or enriching the bad - a consumer device with a ToS that says it will spy on you spying on people is nothing now. Laws be damned, because laws mean nothing now. These devices bery well may soon be the only lawfully available devices in the consumer market precisely because of their surveilance capabilities. Governments are reluctanty catching up to the capabilities of digital technologies, and they're finding them more useful now than ever before. We will be burning witches again before we ever prosecute tech companies for doing bad things.
>The age of shame is over. Current world goernments have flourished under the premise of being terrible, horrible, awful, evil enterprises that do bad for the sake of either being bad or enriching the bad - a consumer device with a ToS that says it will spy on you spying on people is nothing now. Laws be damned, because laws mean nothing now.
We must inculcate into our children and youth a supreme distrust of and skeptical eye for both government and corporations. They are both systems of resource acquisition and control, whose interests often come into conflict with the interests of the people. It is unfortunate that modern technology is being used in this manner, as it very well may lead to a destructive sort of neoludditism. Technology should be embraced, in the sense of teaching children how its composed, how it works, information security, privacy, etc. A child should not leave elementary school not knowing at all how to use an OpenPGP client or how to do very basic Linux system administration from the command line. Ignorance of technology's workings combined with the excitement for technology's consumer applications are the recipé for the normies' complacancy today. Maybe throw a few Steinbeck books out of the school curriculum to make room for this education?
I'm thinking less about shame, as corporations are dead to shame, and more about proof the TV stored a record of your bank details it got from text to speech.
If that's stored as text inside the TV and you lost money because it was copied by a hacker then you have a monetary value to show loss and a trail of liability you can use to sue LG.
The average user would not realize LG was the reason, if they do they will loose more money and effort; LG's reputation and public image won't be even damaged enough for them to take a notice. You are an ant for them and ants are only powerful if they work together.
>I'm thinking less about shame, as corporations are dead to shame, and more about if you can prove the TV stored a record of your bank details it got from text to speech.
Then they'll get a joke fine, and continue as before. Maybe cut the price for a while, until they reintroduce it with another pretext a few years down the line.
And what will anyone actually do when they are bound by an arbitration agreement that prevents class action lawsuits and/or will find against the user because it's an arbitration agreement (with an arbiter that will bend knee and suck cock for the corporations and governments overseeing it - read Five Eyes[0] and Israeli espionage in the US[1])? Or are forced out of court due to the obscene cost of legal action in most nations due to lobbying efforts to protect corporations? Or never get to court due to said obscene costs, or even the simple knowledge of the ofence? Or are simply homeless because all of their money (their most recent paycheck) was stolen, and they are now derelict?
The legal systems that are in place (at least, those in the US) are not sufficient or even designed to act in any amount of favor of individuals. Even leveraging collective action (class action cases), most individuals are left worse off after judgement when they are wronged. Signalling that you are an affected class is effectively an admission of, at minimum, association - and worse guilt, of whatever an inteligence agency may suspect you of. Intelligence is not justice, and does not "protect" individuals under the same standards. If a government wants you to be wronged, they will accomplish it regardless of law, and the information they have regarding you will be leveraged as aggressively as possible. If you are simply wronged, the cost of accomplishing justice is often insurmountable.
In the most innocent case of wrongdoing by one of these surveilance devices, what would you, as an individual, do if your bank details were compromised as a result of a "smart" device exposing your credentials to bad actors? Obviously, you would contact your banking institution and try your best to rememedy the situation. But say, for example, this smart device is on your home network, has your login details, and possibly used your 2fa details because you used it to log in to your banking institution. That is You™. You logged in. You actioned something. It's verifiable because of your IP and your cookies and your 2fa code and the heuristics of your device usage (time of day, and the previous factors, and more). Many smart device applications already include SDKs that act as residential proxies - it's not impossible to believe that malicious ones may act as MITM or such. The possibility of 0Day expoloits or even backdoors can never be ruled out as you do not own these devices.
People should be subject to shame. Every government and every company are composed of people (for now) - these people are what action these possible futures, and who action the exploits of now. They are shameless by trade because that is their value. Much like the adtech industry thrives on the compromise of compensation to overcome the shame of doing wrong, so does intelligence and clandestine commercial exploitation. Money affords people the things that they want and need, which are becoming ever more impossible to acquire without succumbing to the shame of doing Bad Things™ to acquire it. You are never going to be able to sue LG because your bank details were leaked by a public DB or some other endpoint. Nobody will. Because the value of the information that LG provides to governments circumventing established anti-surveilance law (in the US, the 4th Amendment) through sales is worth more than any dollar amount it costs these parties.
Shame on every fucking one of you stains who implements this, if you can feel it, hidden in the walls of your owned property.
I can get that being annoying. I enjoy that keybinds are a configurable thing in the linux distributions and DEs that I've used, and I've found that most tend to have sane defaults. I assume that the situation is similar in macOS, but I don't know. The last time I've used any version of macOS was in 2008 during school, and I was far too young to really "get" computers, so I never experienced them in the way that I assume many people do now. The only other Apple products I've used since has been some combination of fourth gen and seventh gen ipod nanos (which were excellent, save for windows iTunes). Is there some secret sauce that Apple has that I'm just unexposed to that makes it wonderful?
I've used linux desktops for years, and in my experience it is quite difficult to fight against the default keybindings. It is much easier to go with the status quo, which is annoying especially if you regularly switch between a mac and linux machine.
My NixOS + Hyprland desktop largely has the same shortcuts as OSX. I super+space for launching things. Super+Q for quitting. Custom keybinds are trivial. I always thought KDE and Gnome were kind of garbage, but Hyprland gets out of the way and really lets me build the desktop environment I want.
> The fine ends up back in their pockets in months in the form of loans and grants and tax avoidances and so on.
More importantly and less often talked about, these fines end up back in their pockets because Meta is a defense contractor in all but name. Governments gladly buy data from these companies; the US hapily buys data because it circumvents the 4th amendment. The reason the US does not have strong data privacy laws is because strong data privacy laws are antithetical to big tech, technofascism, and a surveilance state. Yes, the people running these companies are doing evil unto the world for profit, and arguably yes, they ought to face justice for such, and yes, what they are doing ought to be illegal because it is morally wrong and incredibly damaging. But when that justice is monopolized by the same governments that rely on these evil acts to fulfil their desire for power and self preservation, nothing will happen. Meta has been complicit in multiple genocides, yet you will never see it on any lists that harm its business.
This strikes me more as an art project than a commercial endeavour. It can obviously be both. I've worked with a friend on a similar boutique concept, and one of the driving factors in its possible success is scarcity economics, or the deliberate limiticy of products that drives intrigue, percieved value, and experience. These are all things that brand designers work tirelessly on (either to embody or avoid, branding is a very bizarre world in which many approaches work in many markets). I would wager a good bit that this probably lost money in isolation, but it being part of the design firms portfolio, it probably adds more value than it cost in credibility and brand identity/authenticity for themselves.
This was a very significant talking point through most of covid, actually. Granted, there is an orders-of-magnitude disparity between office buildings and data centers regarding both their resource consumption and their local financial return through employment. Its no surprise that the attitude towards data centers is much more negative.
Not really, no? I'm not saying office buildings are "just as bad" as data centers; I'm saying they're substantially worse. It is much more unpleasant to have an office building next to your home than it is to have one of the CyrusOne Aurora data centers. The data center is --- seriously go look at them --- basically like having a park next door.
Office buildings employ considerably more people, support nearby restaurants, consume less power and water, produce virtually no infrasound, and are more attractive than data centers. I'd rather have an office building next to my house than a data center, especially if they would not be providing me colocation services at a steep discount.
Office buildings are not more attractive than data centers; that's my whole argument. In format, massing, and design, data centers essentially are office buildings, just with drastically less parking. Asphalt is the biggest eyesore in commercial real estate.
(Data centers consume immaterial amounts of water.)
Drastically less parking, so way less jobs in the local area right?
Like maybe the municipality doesn't care because a lot of jobs are filled by people coming in from an hour away, but surely the inverse of "I am sad because <some job source in my area> closed" is "I am happy because <some job source in my area> opened", right?
I get what you're saying about the buildings themselves. I just think that, in the abstract and all else being equal (it isn't of course!) "big box for 50 jobs" and "big box for 200 jobs", one seems nicer. Maybe I'm overestimating the job differential. And this is all a bit of a false dichotomy anyways
First, no, all these buildings have wildly overprovisioned parking. Most of the lots are empty. I'd encourage people wondering about this to just go drive out to an office complex in a suburb near them and look. Second, no, these jobs are not generally filled by neighbors of the office complexes, or even people from the muni where the office complex is situated.
The big box for 50 jobs is also a nicer building to have near you, at least when we're talking about the data centers you find in the western suburbs of Chicago.
Is this not the same for the data centers? Have data centers solved parking provisioning in a way office parks haven't?
> Second, no, these jobs are not generally filled by neighbors of the office complexes, or even people from the muni where the office complex is situated.
I mean again... are the data center jobs like ... guaranteed to be people in the local area? Isn't the nature of the job provisioning going to be the same with both buildings, roughly? What is special about the data center jobs to not have parking/traffic/etc?
I saw the pics of the data center you're talking about, with nice trees. I get what you're saying, it looks nice!
But it's not like if I made a nice park buffer around my office park that you would be like "oh they're the same" now right?
Is your argument "if you have a data center and an office park of the same size, the data center will generate less traffic and be less of an eyesore"? Then that means less jobs right? Why is the "cost to municipality per job" lower with the data center? Or maybe your argument is simply based on value to the specific municipality, and that the jobs are not worth much to your eyes in any case/in fact are negative, and so it's about (glibly) damage reduction?
(in other words: if you're going to a council meeting to fight a data center being built, you probably should be going to the council meeting to fight the office building being built...?)
(Serious question, I want to understand the dynamics here better)
No, it's not the same! At least not at the data centers I've seen. Go look at the Aurora CH1 CyrusOne DC and then beam yourself down 88 a bit to the nearest office building and compare. Data centers have parking, but not a lot of it. CHI1 is ringed by a single two-sided line of spots. Every big box retailer is surrounded by an ocean of asphalt larger than CHI1 itself.
It amuses me that you have consistently refused to draw the connection to this 'ocean' of asphalt and the purpose of the building it was designed for and are basically being obtuse.
But you know what is a better neighbour than a data centre or an office or a strip mall? A nice public park and local shops that support the community without you having to drive your car a distance that in any other country would be easily walkable.
Why would anybody want a monolithic megastructure sat next to their house that offers nothing good to the community itself? There is no upside for the locals. No improvement to quality of life.
You know what's even better than a nice public park?
A hospital and a university.
And if they don't generate taxes, they should fund a welfare program too.
That is what the discussion sounds like to me.
We turned from discussing whether data centers cause concrete issues to the point where authorities should intervene, to some sort of wish list for how data centers that are constructed far away from residents should provide great public benefits.
The data center might be more attractive but the office building provides more jobs and resources to the local community. You skipped that point in your reply. Even if most of the people working in the office building aren't from the area, those people are getting food and other services from local businesses. All that money goes to the local community and supports local businesses.
You'd take a featureless, opaque warehouse over a structure with windows and architecture that was intended to stand out? The asphalt doesn't have to be an eyesore if planned well, either. Copious vegetation woven throughout, painted teal or with murals instead of black, a policy of "after the following hours, locals are allowed to play roller-hockey and tennis here.", host regular farmer's markets, etc.
That’s wild, where do all the people from Aurora work? The data centers? Also what does the specific building or set of buildings you hate in one town have to do with the concept of office buildings
I've lost track of what your argument is. Mine is that office buildings are not generally filled with workers from the immediate municipality in which they're situated.
We're talking about office buildings because office buildings and data centers are both large-format commercial real estate developments.
> That’s wild, where do all the people from Aurora work?
Last I checked, Aurora had a large blue-collar Latino population, many of whom are successful tradespeople.
These people commute to construction sites elsewhere during the day, and perhaps your own neighborhood, where HN posters snitch to the town if they use a leaf blower within 1500' of their home office.
I don't know what you think this link shows, but you can just jump to CHI1 on Google Maps (or, you know, drive there) to see what that area looks like.
It shows another generic large semi-industrial/semi-commercial building with a fancy facade around the lobby/reception area and a big blocky rectangular warehouse-style building behind it, with a little mechanical area outside of it. For a moment I thought I was staring at a satellite photo of parts of south San Jose, Sunnyvale or Newark. I can't even begin to count how many of these I've seen in my life. And counter to your point about aesthetics of an office building, I have seen plenty of office buildings that have nice shaded and tree-covered parking lots that aren't wide expanses of asphalt, with pleasant outdoor areas, and architecture that might not be exquisite, but fits well with the time and place it exists in.
reply