The problem is people keep trying to regulate businesses by name instead of by the effects they have.
If we had regulations on noise, vibration, emissions, water use, electromagnetic radiation, whatever else, then it wouldn’t matter what people tried to build — if it fits within the guidelines great, otherwise back to the drawing board.
Putting “data center” in your ordinances is as lazy and ineffective as putting “abattoir.”
> There are no meaningful regulations in building them
If a municipality doesn’t have emissions, noise, water use, etc regulations, that’s a serious failure in governance.
We don’t need nor want the word “data center” in regulations anymore than we need the word “abattoir.”
The names of the things we build change all the time. Their impact on their communities don’t.
We need to regulate impact, not the name or type of business.
If we did, nobody would know or care about data centers and they wouldn’t be affecting their communities, because they’d be operating under established impact regulations.
I’m working on a DaaS startup (drone as a service) so maybe I’ll locate next to you and your customers can blow drones out of the sky and mine will keep having to replace theirs.
Lots of AWS’s control surfaces are in us-east-1, and (not calling out any specific instances here) sometimes what’s call an “AWS outage” especially regarding us-east-1, is actually a limitation on accessing those control surfaces, ie, making changes to assets that are actually hosted elsewhere.
In such cases the services continue to operate as-is despite problems in us-east-1.
Not saying that’s not a problem, just, clarifying the scope.
The spa approach also achieves what’s probably the key ingredient to making this useful medically — consistent data over time. We know the “what’s this fuzzy bit!?!” hysteria with elective scans can be counterproductive, but if you truly had monthly scans going back 2 years, the fuzzy bit could in fact mean something.
The sci-fi writes itself. Someone hacks the spa’s schedule to find out when you’re getting your scan done, then hacks the machine to push the output to 11 when you’re in, and liquifies your insides.
It’s also possible to not really hold that strong an opinion on things. Not everything is a pitched battle where doing what your employer wants means you’ve sacrificed your integrity.
Potential monkey wrench: you’re assuming the AI agents we have access to are the same ones crawling and indexing the web for those models. They not only incorporate the text they find while crawling, into their models, but they have access to some kind of web search behind the scenes as well — when you ask a chatbot for information on a product or person or whatever, it doesn’t “go out and look for it” it hits up a web index (which literally could be Google, but is probably something a little different) and then searches the sites the indexer returned.
Your test replicates what happens if someone asks for something specifically on a given site, but not necessarily what happens when you ask the chatbot for info by name/title instead of specific URL. The former is generally much more important than the later.
So pre-digital, no books, publications, photographic prints, scrolls, tablets, or clay etchings we lost to time?
> Thinking centuries ahead, reliable historical records basically stop around 2000-2020 or so.
That’s basically backwards.
We’re making a stink because people are identifying one needle in a giant pile of needles that they can’t find anymore.
And people point to thousand-year old physical writings that persist, because they persist, and don’t know what was lost because it was lost.
Digital records are far far more long-lived — in the statistical average — than physical.