They don't "prefer" anything. They just take what's given to them because they don't know that there are other methods. Companies purposely keep them uninformed to reduce hassle when dealing with customers and to make them more likely to follow the route that the company prefers.

Kratos in God Of War Chains Of Olympus through to God Of War III (if we're speaking Chronologically) didn't enjoy conflict. He was originally a soldier fighting the Persians that was then cursed to be a representation of war. He had a family that Ares took them away, and so he willingly took on the curse in order to kill every god and free humanity from their helplessness under the gods. A huge thread of the sequel series is him realizing that the Pantheon were not the only gods, and that killing them all isn't as powerful as enabling humanity to defy them. And he sees his own son as the bridge that will link the humans to their own innate potential. Kratos has been entrenched in blood and warfare since he was a teenager, and has come to see conflict to be a result of those unwilling to separate their needs and wants.

So basically a nietzschean prometheus

When underlying problems are left untreated the number of unreasonable responses increases as a symptom of that. For sure, you'll always have that tiny minority who are just misanthropes. But a lot of the people who end up causing destruction do so because there's some problem affecting them that's not being dealt with. The modern world incentivizes creating underlying problems because not only can you profit from the unreasonable responses, but you can sell protection against them as well. A large portion of the economy actually revolves around this as a consequence of the shift towards service rather than production.

> But a lot of the people who end up causing destruction do so because there's some problem affecting them that's not being dealt with.

I think solving the socioeconomic, geopolitical, and religious tensions that lead to plane hijackings is a much harder problem to solve than simply putting doors on cockpits and forcing people to do body scans.

But it the long run we should maybe still attempt to solve it, before there are mandatory body scans everywhere and cars only start, if you do a mental examination first?

Exactly. That's treating a symptom, which creates more and more extreme symptoms. After a while though it's far more costly and complex to keep treating the wide variety of symptoms than it ever would've been to treat the cause, but because so much infrastructure has been built around treating those symptoms it's too difficult to dedicate resources to treating the cause.

How do you stop the hijacker blowing up the TSA queue instead?

Well that's easy, just add metal detectors and a pat-down at the entrance of the airport, before people queue up for TSA!

It appears to be not so much about the datacenters themselves as it is limiting the growth capabilities for the LLMs. From their understanding fewer datacenters means more congestion which means less possibility LLMs can be shoved into more places where the public thinks they are intrusive. Which seems to be everywhere.

Can't put new technology back in the box.

We don't build the chips or even the machines that build the machines that build the chips. We don't own all the rare earths and our ability to generate electricity isn't anything special.

The data centers are getting built. Up to us if it's in Utah or overseas.

I've been telling people for years now not to engage with systems such as these. Some say I'm just being paranoid. But a growing number concerningly reply with either "So? What are they gonna do with it?" or "They already have it, it doesn't matter." Normal people either don't know the dangers present or they don't understand that stopping the flow hurts the machine. And they want neither to know or understand. Apathy or the desire for convenience cannot adequately explain why.

All this biometric data is setting people up for identity theft attacks. These types of attacks are going to grow enormously over the coming years as biometric data is gathered and leaked on a massive scale. Anything put on the internet has been leaked already, almost every company with a web presence has lost data. Biometrics unlike passwords, phone numbers and credit cards can not be changed.

And that assumes a relatively stable environment; but politics can change drastically for the worse. We have examples from relatively recent history of governments turning evil, rounding up unfavored groups, and shipping them off in rail cars to an early demise. God forbid it happens again with all the information available to sort, categorize, and identify people.

What can people do? Systems like these are mandated by companies that provide services that people need, and they are hard to avoid. In-person verification is sometimes an option but not always.

But what is the alternative?

Many of these systems are added to digital wallets due to legal requirements or fraudulent cases. For example, one case of fraud that I’m aware of happened in Chile, where citizens were able to open bank accounts digitally with just their ID. But since there is no good biometric information, many criminals took the IDs of homeless people to open accounts and move money around.

Sadly, these shitting things happen, then companies use these services to avoid the liability, and then these services abuse the information they have.

People don’t have much choice unless their representatives in government do something; it’s not about apathy: you can stop using one bank app, but not all of them otherwise you’ll be out of the financial system.

I recall at an old place of work, the security office having a poster on the wall that said something to the effect of "if your facial biometrics get compromised, you must change your face".

Silly as they were trying to be, the concept still holds -

Facial biometrics can and do get compromised too. Your example of IDs taken from the homeless - what the heck prevents organized criminals from taking pictures or recordings of their faces too?

Already there's malware out there stealing facial recognition data from infected devices (ESET reported on this nearly two years ago). Unlike changeable passwords, once your facial recognition data is compromised then that's it. Scammers can now impersonate you on top of having defeated this additional layer of fraud prevention.

Since those people don't care about privacy and anonymity, perhaps they are also willing to trade by verifying for someone who does care?

What I'm afraid of is that this is all a ticking bomb that is going to explode VERY hard on the most technologically vulnerable.

Governments, regardless of what threat they wield against those they supposedly govern, are limited by the fact that they are organizations run by humans. For now. God forbid we ever reach the point where there are no humans... Anyways, because of that they require humans to ensure enforcement. A major reason why Yoti is able to do what it's doing is because there are no humans enforcing privacy and data protection laws against them. This means the reverse can also be true, where enough people motivated to do so can simply not enforce whatever requirement there is for Yoti's services to be used. Because the social contract's been not only breached but shredded and spread to the wind this is very likely to occur. In my viewpoint unfortunately the most likely reason is because they'll go with somebody else other than Yoti that provides more favourable terms, but that's an aside to the likely situation I outlined.

An admirable principled stance that just doesn’t fucking work in the real world. Government processes and staff have zero interest in such stances. Next time you go through a border control try refusing to be searched or scanned on grounds of privacy and see how that goes for you.

Lay the chat about broken social contract and how governments are a threat thick enough and officials may decide it’s better if you’re not on a plane at all

Dude I'm likely on so many lists already it doesn't even matter. Considering the government of my nation is currently levying new threats against the citizenry just about every day it's not even that much to talk about.

I'm just hoping that enough people can be convinced that systems of governance are not immune ethereal constructs run like videogame logic where you cannot do anything not explicitly written down. Too many people think that enforcement of anything works like a zap from God instead of being a mechanism that needs enforcers to pull it off.

In addition, to the fact that governments are still run by us mere mortals, is the fact that even the government is unable to 100% to guarantee that our data is "safe" in their hands...

One of the dangers is in the ability to cross-nationally attack someone. As digital infrastructure continues to encompass more and more facets of necessary interactions with the government and governments force more and more points of interaction someone from a foreign nation could destroy the life of someone who is interfering with their aims. Say someone has published an article that reveals the terrible behaviour of a given company. Someone hired by the company can use a variety of data points to not only track down who that person is, but where they live and even which room in their house they spend the most time in. With that kind of information it would be easy to financially, reputationally, or mortally wound someone. With the worryingly swift growth rate of corruption this could apply at any level for any reason. And unlike for example the difficulty of getting into a car crash or robbing a cash register, digital infrastructure makes all of this remarkably easy and for some parts even free. With modern LLM agents it could be entirely automated so that no human is ever involved, and because there's so few current guardrails and such a vehement protestation against any being implemented the agent could wipe it's connection to it's handler so that nobody ever faces any consequences.

The thing is, this kind of stuff already happens all the time. The number of spam calls people suffer through are a direct result of companies digging through the contacts list after being granted that permission (though often without being granted that permission), then selling that data to brokers. Data breaches that wipe people's credit or force a credit freeze because they bought something ten years ago are another common one. Or think about package stalking, where people get access to someone's purchase history and the tracking number to a purchase so that they can steal it in transit or once it arrives. There's a number of beatings and murders that have happened because of police officers being able to access surveillance tools to track former romantic partners or spouses. All of these are different parts of the lack of privacy, and they're all getting worse because the tools that are used to surveil are becoming more widespread and more accessible.

Privacy is a protection against the intelligent attacks of other humans. It is not a frill that can be taken away without ridiculous and trailing harm.

One could feasibly make their debate topic that the U.S. is not actually a functioning country but instead has morphed into an extensive financialization scheme, and they could win that debate.

Datacenters are financially a net negative for whichever municipality they end up in. They're operated mostly remotely with little staff and they have no tangible production, meaning any wealth they generate ends up vast distances away. Meanwhile the municipality ends up with increased costs because of the inefficiencies of bruteforcing computation, and because of the subsidies and tax breaks that the companies not only expect but demand for construction, there's no revenue being generated even for the local government.

That alone is enough of an argument against them.

Why did you not include the tax they bring in? I think this is a serious omission and points at motivated reasoning.

Can you do one where you account for the tax dollars and compare it to similar industries?

Because in reality they don't actually bring in any revenue for the first few years thanks to all the subsidies and tax breaks they demand upfront before construction. At best it would be state and federal taxes used for operations that any operating business brings like federal payroll, but there wouldn't be any property taxes for at least five to ten years and the federal corporate income tax would likely be from the state the company is based in rather than the state the datacenter is based in. The municipality, be that the county or city the datacenter's in, gets screwed.

Meanwhile just to run a trucking depot you'd have the heavy vehicle tax, international fuel agreement tax, registration tax, sales taxes for the trucks and trailers, property taxes, and whatever incidental taxes required by the state you're operating in. The property tax, IFAT, and local payroll taxes meanwhile all go to the municipality and don't skip straight up to the state or national level. This is with no expectation of any of this being waived or delayed because the trucking industry doesn't have the surface visible financial performance of the industries municipalities are more lenient towards.

False. They bring in huge amounts of taxes.

> Over the past 20 years, the data center industry in Loudoun County has grown significantly. As a result, the amount of revenue that the county receives from personal property tax revenue on the computer equipment located inside data centers has also grown significantly. Currently, data centers occupy approximately 4 percent of commercial parcels of the land in the county; however, they yield 38% of general fund revenue collected by the county

38% of fund revenue for this county comes from data centres.

https://www.loudoun.gov/m/faq?cat=241

As far as I know it's mostly rich hobbyists or people purchasing for decoration that buy Fenders just because of name recognition. Almost everyone else gets guitars from small custom shops because they're cheaper, better built, and you're not stuck with a single bridge style and two choices of pickups. That's if they don't just buy off the rack stuff from ESP or Ibanez, who have absolutely devoured Fender's market share in the under $2,000 category. Which incidentally is the largest consumer base. The only thing Fender sells consistently is the Telecaster and the Jaguar, both of which people prefer off the shelf versions of rather than getting from the custom shop because you can't really mess with the design of either without drastically altering the sound.

If you want an example of when this kind of lawsuit backfires and causes reputational loss like you say, look at Gibson. A few years ago they sued Music Man, First Act, Jackson, Dean, and a few others over the "flying V" design that came out in 1958 and had already been genericized by the early '80s. They won on trademark grounds against Dean and the resulting fear over the other open lawsuits caused a few Flying V and Explorer lookalikes to go out of production. Since then anyone who remembers the ordeal has warned people away from ever purchasing their guitars. Gibson were in terrible but improving condition in 2024 having just left bankruptcy in 2019 and the fallout from the lawsuit being revived last year has massively hurt their sales and left them right on the track to death again.

Pre-education is swinging too far in the opposite direction for your own argument. Jacobus Uys the guy who wrote The Gods Must Be Crazy was sixty when the film came out in 1980. He watched the entire shift from the machine age to the nuclear age to the information age. His required childhood education in the 1920s and 1930s would've been six to eight years with highschool as optional. His parents who were children in the 1890s likely would've had education be entirely optional. He lived through the change from school being a privilege to being required and watched as it grew from six to eight to twelve years. The film itself is literally about the dichotomy between a post-agrarian tribe and nuclear age civilians and how less than a century separated most of the world from being one before they became the other. He wasn't reaching back to some pre-modern past, he was commenting on the rapid expansive changes he had seen during his own lifetime.

Just like almost everyone above... 40 years? 50 years? talk about their childhood with rose tinted glasses on and how nowadays children are spoiled brats. But if you actually paid attention to what adults were saying when you were a teenager, you would remember more or less the same concepts.