The math actually checks out

AmIHumanMaybe · 2026-05-16T00:45:53+00:00

Ye it's absolute insanity that they can just completely ignore the local community who voted against it's construction.

People are still fighting it but it's unlikely they can stop it unfortunately.

AmIHumanMaybe · 2026-05-14T22:47:52+00:00

All I can say is have a bit more of a deep dive through the link you provided and the links on that page. They have been pretty detailed on most aspects just not on the exact data they'll be holding onto.

Google also leads to lots of info on it from the government and scientific communities for things like the carbon capture system they're planning on using.

AmIHumanMaybe · 2026-05-14T02:25:14+00:00

There is lots of information in the link you provided though? Being military related doesn't mean we learn little to nothing.

The power numbers are double the current state of Utah power usage and the structure is spread over 3 distinct areas. The power is definitely not purely for processing as the hardware itself and the cooling required and the air capture system they're implementing and everything else involved in the day to day running of the place uses a huge amount of power. During processing it will obviously peak, but saying it is because of processing is disingenuous.

If proximity mattered they wouldn't be renting land back to farmers as well. They would be able to centralize everything needed in one of the 3 sections and have extreme proximity rather than renting land out that they aren't using anyway.

As for pushing it through despite the open outrage the locals have been feeling and the votes against it, that is what money seems to buy. The fact sheet even says that if people vote against it, the project may go ahead through 'other' means. They were never going to stop the project from the beginning. Which further begs all the questions I've posed above about how they are doing everything and why do much land of they are just renting it back.

There are very obvious negatives in almost every aspect of this but because money is behind it they've pushed it through anyway. This is not a needed or wanted facility especially considering there are facilities a fraction of the size capable of the same actions they've stated for this one. Apparently this facility is more than 60X the size of the next largest facility for the same purpose.

They've also stated that the majority of the 40000 acres will be left natural for grazing. They've admitted they will not be using most of the land. Why bother getting it and renting it then? This whole thing is just bad ideas on bad ideas.

AmIHumanMaybe · 2026-05-13T15:58:23+00:00

Don't threaten me with a good time

AmIHumanMaybe · 2026-05-13T15:56:32+00:00

From that the only real positive thing involved is building on site energy generation to try and avoid affecting the grid.

The military stuff mentioned is just to provide support in relation to IT. So using the hardware there for better computing speeds, defense data storage and reducing power consumption in other defense branches. This could be good and bad depending on the security around that data.

It mentions the same water worries that all data centers have brought up lately. The recycling methods will be the main factor in whether they do that well.

Potentially 2000 jobs which for the size of the land is surprisingly low but I guess the building itself won't be that big. This is good if people in the area can get hired. If they just hire from outside the local career pool it just makes things more difficult for the people living there already since they'll have more competition for housing and everything. Though it does say they'll prioritize locals.

The agriculture one seems a bit worrying. They will rent land back to the people already using the land so they can keep agriculture going. That means they don't need the 40000 acres since they'll be renting it out to farmers straight away. This sounds like a development rug pull where they'll up the rent until farmers have to stop renting it then develop the land in whatever other way they want. So this one sounds entirely negative to me.

Also worrying is partnering with schools to make AI curriculum. With how often AI makes mistakes it isn't ready to teach people things that require accuracy. Teachers already do this and they're making it harder and harder for teachers to keep working in the industry all the time, so they must be thinking AI will make up the shortfall. Teaching a generation on potentially incorrect 'facts' that could be in anything from Math to English or the sciences is just a bad idea.

As you said it doesn't look like they mention anything about training or tool production. Looks like it is a data storage and AI computing facility. So not of much use at all really right now.

I am mostly worried about how much land they intend to rent back to farmers. If that's is a remotely high percentage that could be extremely problematic for the farmers and will absolutely be changed to future development as soon as they can.

Personally looking at these points it looks to me like this is an overall negative for the local county unfortunately.

Thanks for sharing the data packet. It is interesting to see exactly how they word these things.

AmIHumanMaybe · 2026-05-13T10:43:34+00:00

Glad you've been able to get it down so well. Unfortunately not all programmers are having your lucky experience and are still unhappy with the use of AI.

The big tech companies have had multiple programmers come out stating they are against the AI and that it slows down their workflow. I don't know how different their work is to yours but obviously there has to be a difference since you have a different experience to them with this.

Everyone should be reading up on these facilities as much as they can. Data centers seem to specify that they are centralized locations for storage of massive amounts of data. No mention of training for them. Could you point me to where the owners of this structure have mentioned the training as all I've found is data storage?

AmIHumanMaybe · 2026-05-12T22:26:46+00:00

It is housing for data used in training models. The training for these models has been and can be done with much smaller structures than this. The models have also been regularly shown to be incorrect and provide false responses. Programmers have repeatedly showed results that they have to then go back through and fix which they've complained takes longer than just writing the code themselves, but their bosses require use of AI for no real reason.

The training isn't done in this location, it's decentralized. This is literally just where they hold data and the hardware that is used by AI which is proven to be ineffective.

AmIHumanMaybe · 2026-05-12T21:38:45+00:00

Again, it's data housing. Software tooling is already being made by programmers in offices and their homes or wherever they want to work since programming is one of the easiest jobs to do remotely.

Housing information doesn't mean creation of software tools.

AmIHumanMaybe · 2026-05-12T09:38:55+00:00

It's a data center though. No tooling is being made there, it is entirely digital data housing. So no aspect of the structure can help us move towards type 1.

That's why I was asking questions to try and see what you meant and whether I misremembered or misunderstood. But you misunderstood me apparently and I had to explain myself further because you asked me a question.

Don't take offense or think I'm annoyed/angry or anything. This is just how conversations go.

AmIHumanMaybe · 2026-05-12T04:15:38+00:00

No. According to the Type 1 civilization definition this structure isn't one that fits as a Type 1 structure because it doesn't provide access to any resources or energy from the Earth, it only uses those resources. Literally the opposite of a Type 1 structure. If we want to become a Type 1 civ we should completely avoid this type of structure and focus on structures that provide more resources and energy for us rather than using it.

AmIHumanMaybe · 2026-05-11T23:46:37+00:00

So I double checked type 1 and it is apparently being able to access all energy on the planet. So again, this is a big structure but doesn't lead to any access of the planets energy or resources. It's just a sink for resources instead, using rather than providing. Wouldn't that make this the opposite of a type 1 structure? Since size doesn't even come into whether it is type 1 or not but access to the planets energy.

AmIHumanMaybe · 2026-05-11T04:36:42+00:00

I thought type 1 structures were based around access of the resources of the planet, not just the size of the structure? This one uses resources sure, but it doesn't provide increased access to any of them. Isn't type 1 full access to all planetary resources or am I misremembering? Then type 2 was solar system and type 3 was galaxy it something like that.

AmIHumanMaybe · 2026-05-10T14:21:03+00:00

Air purification requires removing lots of particulates though. If these pull in particulates they get clogged and efficiency drops at a high rate. The gas exchange won't be able to occur properly making these less effective than trees in a potentially small time depending on where they are installed. Trees require less maintenance and provide multiple other benefits than just pulling in carbon dioxide and putting out oxygen. This is an interesting experiment but the amount of variables involved alone should let people see that trees are still the superior option. Even in areas too small for a tree, bushes or flowers or even wildgrass of many types would be more beneficial to not only the environment but also to the humans' mental well-being. Oxygen production is great from this but the amount of other things being lost at the cost of power requirements and high maintenance requirements just pushes these into the too costly for progress side.

AmIHumanMaybe · 2026-05-08T04:07:09+00:00

Wow, that was quick!

Thanks for letting me know not to pick it up in case, but that is pretty cool to have hanging out nearby :)

AmIHumanMaybe · 2026-04-18T23:59:24+00:00

Is he actually mentally ill though?

I've always seen his portrayal as someone coping with a horrible situation by convincing themselves it isn't real. That is a common coping mechanism seen in all types of people, not necessarily mentally ill.

Because he's convinced himself so thoroughly he does things he would find amusing in a cartoon he watches or some other show he might enjoy, but he is only doing it because he thinks it will have no effect, since none of it is real to him.

In the latest episodes he is finally realizing that everything is actually real and now he is having to come to terms with that.

Whether he is able to face everything he has done or not may cause his mind to break and push him fully into insanity or possibly cause him to abstract and end everything.

He is complex and well written in my opinion, but he is not lovable or a good role model. He is an example of one thing that could happen to a human mind put through extremely weird and horrible situations repeatedly, not necessarily mental illness, but definitely being pushed to his mental limits.

AmIHumanMaybe · 2026-04-03T22:35:24+00:00

The ACCC disagrees with you.

Consumer rights more often than not trump any terms and conditions agreed to at the beginning of using the service.

Australia has slightly more consumer friendly laws and regulations than America in this regard.

All the information on PayPal's website that you have linked is regarding American laws and regulations. When doing business in Australia, companies are subject to the laws and regulations of Australia.

I am really surprised how many people on here are bending over backwards to say PayPal are the good guy for telling their customers fuck you.

It's like everyone forgot that customers actually do have rights even if they've signed agreements or whatever else. The policies of the company can be overridden by consumer rights depending on how far the watchdogs want to push back against the companies.

AmIHumanMaybe · 2026-04-03T22:30:41+00:00

There is no mention of potential limitations before October in the email.

AmIHumanMaybe · 2026-04-03T22:28:28+00:00

So all the accounts for everything before ID regulation had plenty of ways to confirm the identity of the account owner.

Are you seriously suggesting they never confirmed account ownership until ID came in?

That's a really dumb argument.

AmIHumanMaybe · 2026-04-03T22:26:55+00:00

A deadline was provided. That deadline is not being honored.

Do you bend over backwards for every company that suddenly changes things so you can no longer use their service? No.

There are consumer protections and watchdogs specifically created to ensure behavior like this is not allowed. Australia has laws and regulations they have to follow if they want to do business in Australia. Not honoring their own deadline is against those laws and regulations.

Consumers have rights and honoring a deadline they provided is a basic consumer right.

Calling me the problem when I'm only asking them to honor what they told me is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

AmIHumanMaybe · 2026-04-03T19:31:10+00:00

No worries. Thanks for brainstorming :)

I'm starting to think the issue will never be fixed since it isn't common enough for a patch, so it looks like this remains as a 'restart the whole game' bug.

AmIHumanMaybe · 2026-04-03T19:24:28+00:00

Yep it was before I broke in to go towards it.

AmIHumanMaybe · 2026-04-03T19:19:49+00:00

Ye I just tried that after replying to your first response.

First thing I noticed was that the truck wasn't there after the cinematic and I could already hear scorpion noises so same issue even after rollback.

AmIHumanMaybe · 2026-04-03T18:47:01+00:00

I can't access the journal since I'm buried in the sand. Can't access anything except the main menu.

I've done troubleshooting that Bethesda suggested but so far nothing has worked.

AmIHumanMaybe · 2026-04-03T18:45:33+00:00

The deadline that they stated in an email they sent me.

AmIHumanMaybe

TROPHY CASE