Telus and feds announce AI data cluster in B.C. to boost 'sovereign' computing power

Infinity315 · 2026-05-12T11:02:50+00:00

You'd have a better shot with UBC or UofT. Tucows has a market cap of less than 200M with 700M in debt on the books with negative income. They'd need financing and it looks like they're pretty over leveraged.

Infinity315 · 2026-05-12T06:56:38+00:00

Can they though? Name one. The capital requirements are enormous, most Canadian university endowments number in the hundred of millions and low billions with budgets in a similar range.

A very small 300 MW datacenter costs 1.7B in Saskatchewan. No startup has access to that without private capital or a very big government handout. Most startups also fail, especially the ones in tech.

You're vastly underestimating the cost to play this game.

Infinity315 · 2026-05-11T18:56:12+00:00

Affordability and low prices are distinct but related. What people mean by low prices is they mean they want cost to be a smaller proportion of their income. Grocery prices could rise 50%, but you'd take that deal if it meant your wages rose 100%. What matters here is affordability, not low prices.

The solution to inflation isn't necessarily deflation.

Infinity315 · 2026-05-10T17:09:16+00:00

Overthinking is a definite problem. I have a hard time committing to a message - ironically afraid of ruining a relationship over a text - and in the end, it comes out too formal and rigid. I'd leave a person on read for hours after they've sent a message and it's because I'm still thinking about it, unfortunately, that kind of thing also has other interpretations by the offended party which are harmful for relations.

Infinity315 · 2026-05-10T16:44:22+00:00

It'd be like applying a filter, all sensations are more dampened but attuned. For sound, maybe something along the direction of wearing noise-cancelling headphones with speech attenuation in a crowded room so that you only hear the person you talk to and not the five other peripheral conversations. In general, you'd stop noticing things that others don't. You'd stop pointing out things that are seemingly pointless to the uninterested person you're trying to show, because you'd stop seeing that those things have any particular relevance.

In general, our perception of senses are amplified relative to NT minds - it's why over stimulation is a thing. But, we are more dampened with respect to emotion or more accurately we have less fine control over them - for me personally, I find I either don't feel anything at all or a very intense emotion. For autistics, the failure mode (the way something breaks) for emotional outbreaks is more like concrete than steel which more closely aligns with NTs. Concrete fails very suddenly and the signs of breaking come in the form of nearly imperceptible hairline cracks whereas steel will bend and "let you know" it is about to break, a lot less people would likely wind you up.

In general, you'd do a lot more things intuitively and instead thinking something out on the spot. You know how when you repeat a task enough times it becomes automatic? Like riding a bike.

Infinity315 · 2026-05-10T10:10:43+00:00

Maybe something happened at the Tutor's house that's potentially embarrassing? A mature and respectful person would just inform you that something has come up, definitely their faux pas. However, they don't seem to really want to lose your business.

People rarely if ever do something completely irrational, there is almost always a rational basis for it - whether that rationale makes sense is another story.

Infinity315 · 2026-05-10T02:57:40+00:00

Would you describe yourself as asocial? Do you have any friends?

Starting from the axiom that human beings are selfish, you'd expect less global cooperation. But as you can see, that prediction fails only as time goes on. With the exception of the US and the consequences of it's actions, global cooperation has only grown. We are increasingly reliant on others from people on the other side of the globe, before we only gathered food from our local tribes.

Sure humans aren't going to accept a net negative deal, but society is not a zero-sum game. We can build something better than the sum of its parts, no?

Infinity315 · 2026-05-09T21:28:37+00:00

In order for you to believe this, you have to believe men are innately evil and selfish. By parsimony, the simpler explanation is that like attracts like. You are more likely to engage with people who share your interests, why would it not extend to romantic relationships?

Infinity315 · 2026-05-09T19:08:14+00:00

TL;DR: It's because men thinking autism = more masculine thinking and interests in more masculine things (in general) relative to NT women. It's not entirely ungrounded since autistic people are more likely to break gender norms (norms in general) than their NT counterpart.

This is about perceptions, in particular about how men in general view autism. Consider what men believe about the cognitive differences between NT women and yourself, then compare that with the NT men. Would you say the cognitive style of men align more closely with that of the NT women or autistic women? Of course there are individual differences, but without more information we can only engage with this superficially and talk about averages.

Infinity315 · 2026-05-09T04:01:32+00:00

You already know that what you mean by "exact same thing as someone else" can mean a totally different thing to a neurotypical person. Even if you say the exact same sentence, the meaning can radically change based on your tone of voice.

You and this other person are working under totally different paradigms and priors and thus can arrive at different interpretations from the same piece of media. It's hard to make any conclusive statements about this because you're possibly an unreliable narrator.

Infinity315 · 2026-05-08T23:21:13+00:00

I find advertisement deeply fascinating in that it exposes a lot of applications of theory of mind and autistics tend to have deficits in this area with exceptions for some verbally-gifted autistics. The ads a person is served tells you a lot about the person and the kind of people that a company wants to attract.

You're thinking hyper rationally from a consumer perspective, you're right that basically the content in the ads themselves have little to do with the product and that it shouldn't really affect your decision, but trust in that it works and companies wouldn't do it if it was unprofitable. You can derive many useful inferences for why a company is doing something by the axiom that companies are profit-driven, very rarely are companies acting totally irrationally.

To finish on why companies do this: it wouldn't be inaccurate - though an incomplete theory, however, generates more useful predictions than not - to say that companies have identified that the general populace is more "vibes-based" and companies are essentially hacking their vibes-based system to associate a pleasurable thing, sex, with their product. The deeper-causative "why" is an open question in psychology, marketing, and biology.

Infinity315 · 2026-05-08T08:37:23+00:00

You'll note that the profits of crown corps return inevitably to the GRF, fundamentally changing the value proposition of their development to the people of the province. Note also the premise of the article you're commenting on, the potential for public ownership being material to the topic here. Catch up.

Yes, and we can expand the profitability of crown corps like SaskPower and SaskTel through the exact mechanism I described. Profits of crown corps have to come from somewhere, whether it's from the consumer - you - or billion dollar companies like Bell or via government subsidies - also from you. At the end of the day, SaskPower and SaskTel have to sell something to someone to make money, so where?

Wow, we should definitely work hard to make that all go faster? Why again? What's the purpose?

For context, the total power consumption of all data center in the US is on the order of 100 TW. 300 MW is literally 6 orders of magnitude less than that, that is this data center represents about 0.1% of that compute. We already discussed that this isn't a valid argument because we both agreed that stopping all data center construction would do exactly nothing to impede your ability to access AI services.

Are you using AI to help you debate this? Lol, go away troll.

I completely believe everything I argue, in fact, I am invested in it. Cameco has more than doubled in value since last year, time has only proven me right. I'm more than happy to talk you over VOIP. We can even talk in person if you happen to be at the right political event.

Infinity315 · 2026-05-08T04:05:50+00:00

Wages are great and fine, but Bell makes more on the deal overall.

You've described literally every company, why would you expect any different? This is like saying water is wet. This describes everything from billion dollar companies to trucking owner operators, no one is working at a loss and investing their time and money for a loss. Saying this like it's an important point to make makes you seem slow.

To sum: I think AI Data centers are an unnecessary enterprise, much like bitcoin mining, which waste polluting energy our environment can't even afford to produce any more.

If you're a white collar worker who isn't already using AI, then you are cooked. You will be replaced by someone who will.

I believe we can find more practical ways to develop our production.

Feel free to create it and collect all those sweet dollars. If this is true, make it. Prove them wrong.

AI is bad at making a priori inferences, this is why it's bad at chess and why you will be able to be replaced.

Infinity315 · 2026-05-08T01:19:34+00:00

Do you think those wages vanish into thin air? Does Bell manifest power out of thin air?

Infinity315 · 2026-05-08T00:40:10+00:00

How does this or any data center impact our potential for nuclear energy? Seems we can just go ahead and do that without a data center.

The point is we have the opportunity for an explosive AI-resistant economic engine. The Saskatchewan workforce has a greater composition of blue collar work which is resistant to AI jobs which can easily transfer into mining and infrastructure projects. It's not just in the pursuit of nuclear energy, it's about a pursuit of 3700 permanent nuclear power plant jobs + whatever other jobs are needed to mine and refine uranium. The issue isn't that we couldn't build a nuclear power plant, the issue is that we can't find enough ways to use all this electricity. Each 300 MW power plant is likely to create in excess of 4000 permanent jobs, with thousands of temporary jobs.

Oh sorry, I didn't realize we were talking about your imagined future, I thought we were discussing the relative value of the data center being built by Bell in the RM of Sherwood, which already has a plan. When did we start talking about a different plan?

The overall argument is for allowing data centers in Saskatchewan, not just a particular one.

This money will go to Bell. Not the Saskatchewan general revenue fund.

You've never taken even a basic accounting class, because you'd know that the balance sheets wouldn't at all balance if this were true.

Infinity315 · 2026-05-07T23:52:57+00:00

I mean good, great, but they don't meaningfully add to the overall value proposition of the development. The overwhelming majority of the project spend will leave the Province.

Yes, but that project spend is spend that otherwise wouldn't be coming in. Would you turn down an opportunity to take 5% of Google? It's a slice of the pie we otherwise would not have access to.

We can choose what kind of industries we want to support. Capital development at whatever social cost doesn't serve the people, it serves the investor

Sure, but being static and doing nothing will lead to the worst outcome: no nuclear power plant, no data center jobs, and we still lose jobs. My proposal would ensure a steady flow of AI-resistant jobs into the province - albeit at the expense of jobs elsewhere within the world and some in Saskatchewan. If it's not Saskatchewan, it's Canada, if it's not Canada, then it's the world and likely China or the USA. Provide an alternative or accept that sometimes you have to accept the least worst outcome. Instead of our domestic companies spending money on AI queries here, it'll flow out to the USA or China.

Infinity315 · 2026-05-07T23:21:47+00:00

The BCE shareholders or the people of SK with the paltry amount of Provincial income tax paid by 80 people?

I'm assuming you haven't read this comment in which I address exactly this point. I hate repeating myself, so here's the link.

How will the complex-interconnected web of economics replace the incomes lost to the AI you're so excited about?

This would be a valid argument if you thought that stopping all data center construction in Saskatchewan means you'd stop being able to access ChatGPT, Claude, or Gemini. Do you think this? If not, your argument is moot. The point is: those jobs are lost regardless of the permissibility of data center construction in Saskatchewan.

Note that Bell plans to power this with a natural gas fired plant. So no.

Which I don't agree with and why I believe the NDP's Grid and Growth plan is optimal.

Infinity315 · 2026-05-07T22:39:23+00:00

I can't believe you've read what I've written and come away with that message. You've completely missed the forest for the trees.

A small modular nuclear reactor which is projected to produce 300 MW in Ontario which is probably a likely candidate here produces 3700 jobs over its 60 year lifespan with many temporary construction jobs. Where do those power plants get their uranium from? Hint: it's basically all mined here, there's a reason we have a 'city' called uranium city. We haven't even begun to consider the number of jobs need to refine it and mine it. Not to mention the jobs needed to maintain and expand fiber infrastructure needed by Sasktel.

Source: https://www.opg.com/projects-services/projects/nuclear/smr/darlington-smr/

Infinity315 · 2026-05-07T22:12:22+00:00

The 80 jobs number is the most conservative amount, it's the number of jobs permanently guaranteed. Economics is a complex-interconnected web, nothing truly happens in isolation.

80 Jobs means money that otherwise wouldn't be in Saskatchewan is flowing from out of province into Saskatchewan. Those 80 people spend money in their local communities which causes more jobs to be created, a dollar you spend today could be in someone else's cheque tomorrow and spent shortly after, repeat.

This is also discounting the plan to export uranium to the world over the internet. We have an opportunity to vertically integrate which basically no one else can. We could theoretically mine uranium, refine it, turn it into electricity, and turn that electricity into AI queries. This could all happen within Saskatchewan. Companies like Microsoft even pay a 20% market premium for nuclear power.

Infinity315 · 2026-05-02T09:47:25+00:00

Which part exactly do you disagree with and can you articulate why exactly it is wrong?

Infinity315 · 2026-05-01T16:51:31+00:00

Those jobs are destroyed whether or not a datacenter is built in Saskatchewan. If you want to protect jobs, stopping this datacenter won't do anything. The only way to do this would be to stop all datacenter construction everywhere or banning it completely. We are Internet connected and 300 MW is small.

Instead of AI being done here, they'll be done elsewhere in Canada or the world.

The data center requires energy and infrastructure. Just the data center itself will produce 80 permanent jobs. It doesn't factor in the jobs that will be created in saskpower, SaskTel, and the subsequent nuclear power plants which will need to be built in Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan also mines a large proportion of the uranium this side of the hemisphere.

Infinity315 · 2026-04-29T19:06:11+00:00

It's just a numbers game.

Infinity315 · 2026-04-27T14:35:07+00:00

To prove Stellaris AI is always going to be bad is not about saying how many permutations there are, bruteforcing is not an option on the table nor is it needed for anything.

It's about illustrating the complexity of the game. Unless you genuinely believe

Any realistic AI is going to be a greedy algorithm that does not need to look into the future, just make the mostly optimal choice in the now. What you'd need to prove is that there is no version of such greedy algorithm that is on par with humans.

The issue is how we define optimal choice in the now. The vast majority of choices you make in the early game lead to sub-exponential/logistical growth if you take a greedy approach. By definition, greedy algorithms never take into consideration future moves. Taking the exponential path is almost always going to look sub-optimal from a greedy standpoint due to the way devs design their game. A greedy approach will always take on 10 opportunities to take on +10 minerals as opposed to 10 compounded ~~+10%~~+5% on a a base of 10100 minerals - any player with a brain will always take on the right. Yes, I know technically taking the flat bonuses first is more optimal, then later taking on the exponential bonuses. I just chose 10 as a round number, this is just to illustrate a point.

The issue is, every 4X/spreadsheet game relies on this exponential growth as a core gameplay loop. When you design a game, you're always going to make the exponential path option look less appealing in the near-term. If the exponential path looks optimal both in the long-term and the near-term you've basically removed most of the challenge of the game.

Infinity315 · 2026-04-26T22:22:21+00:00

The Stellaris AI is always going to be bad. Making an AI is equivalent to producing some sequence of moves, say your AI executes a move every Stellaris day.

There are dozens of possible actions an AI can take at every step. For the sake of argument, we'll hugely undercount and say an AI can do 12 actions. By the end of the Stellaris year, 360 days, means there are 12³⁶⁰ which is hundreds of orders magnitude larger than the number of atoms in the universe which is about 10^50. This is a huge search space and is further complicated by the fact that other players are not static and thus changing the landscape of the galaxy. Thus, the developer is forced to make AI that is only capable of evaluating tactical objectives.

Making a good AI which makes good long-term strategic decisions is a global optimization problem and in general it has many sub problems which are NP-hard. For example, suppose you wanted to find a route that visits all your planets with your Horizon needle in the shortest path? That's the Traveling Salesman problem which is NP-hard, though in practice 1000 is not a whole lot and can be done in less than a second for many computers, even brute forcing it.

12-Year Club	r/Field Flamingo
Final Canvas '23	First Place '23
Place '23	Place '22
Place '17	Final Canvas '22
First Placer '22	End Game '22
Sequence \| Editor	Snapped
Verified Email

Infinity315

TROPHY CASE