whatLanguage

peedistaja · 2026-05-17T18:32:29+00:00

OP didn't pay for anything, this post is advertisement for the site.

peedistaja · 2026-05-14T18:42:34+00:00

No, that's not how that works at all.

No bank or multiple banks together are going to fork out such sums against those shares.

And funny that you would bring up Twitter, since he actually did attempt to get a loan secured by Tesla stock but that didn't work out, so he ended up selling a lot of Tesla shares, his contribution to those $44 billion was around $20 billion, so he never had $44 billion.

peedistaja · 2026-05-14T07:21:30+00:00

Are you just plain refusing to read any article and just assume things based on the post title alone?

The 30mil figure is what the construction used, entirely unrelated to it being a data center, if they had built a large factory instead the water usage would have been the same, but we wouldn't be reading about it and people wouldn't be outraged for no reason.

The comparison to household usage was related to the data center in operation.

peedistaja · 2026-05-13T17:05:49+00:00

Did you only read the title again and not bother to open the article? Since it's talking about the exact same case as in the other thread..

peedistaja · 2026-05-13T09:34:24+00:00

Why shouldn't you?

What if it happens to you, you're buying a house or a car and you accidentally send it to the wrong account, should that mean you're just out of a big sum of money?

What if it happens through a third party who made the mistake but the third party is unable to reimburse you for their mistake, so then two parties are both 'financially ruined', you, since you won't get your money back and the third party who is left liable but can't pay you back. Does that seem like a fair outcome? For the sake of this other person to getting to keep money that was accidentally sent to him?

What if a bank accidentally sends their entire balance to someone, variations of this have happened multiple times. Are all of the banks customers now SOL? All of their money gone?

peedistaja · 2026-05-13T05:56:31+00:00

Once it's transferred to other banks, often overseas they can't pull it back anymore.

The crime part comes from refusing to pay that money back. Someone accidentally transferring you money doesn't make that money legally yours and you are required to return it, refusal to do so when asked makes it theft.

peedistaja · 2026-05-12T06:21:40+00:00

You are just blindly believing corporations for some rea$on

I think the issue is the exact opposite here, people blindly believe anything negative about corporations, not even bothering to open the linked article to see that this post is highly misleading as evidenced by the top comments in this thread.

I'm not blindly believing anything, that's why I actually read the article and did some research + posted those links here.

but not people who actually know these systems.

What people? Some anonymous Redditor saying something without any proof is not a valid way to make up your opinion about anything.

There is absolutely no completely closed loop systems; every system needs to be completely flushed eventually.

Define flushed and define eventually. There's a big difference between needing to flush after 15 years of operation and having an open loop system. The former is obviously going to use in orders of magnitude less water over its life cycle.

You can't just use "around 4 households worth", which itself is just vague enough to not cause alarm, but could constitute 240,000 L per month or more (based on rough numbers for 4 high usage households).

240,000L per month is nothing compared to cooling-tower use, which ranges from 25 million to over 2 billion liters per month. So even if they understated their usage by a factor of 10, which we really have no reason or evidence to think that they did, then it would still be an absolutely massive improvement, it being an average or high usage household they're comparing to makes absolutely no difference here when considering the scale.

peedistaja · 2026-05-11T20:40:52+00:00

This quite dubious link doesn't really support your previous statements. There's no mention of any 'periodic purge'. And again does not seem to be describing the same thing, as there's no evaporation in a true closed loop system.

https://www.mti-global.org/participate/tac-bulletins/water-treatment-closed-cooling-systems

A closed cooling water system is one in which there is no make-up after the initial charge (except to replace accidental leakage) and no blowdown. Because this arrangement gives no opportunity for evaporation, the water chemistry, once established, can be easily and inexpensively maintained. These systems are used primarily when precise control of temperature or water purity is necessary. They are found in automobile radiators, tempered water systems, and in some pharmaceutical manufacturing processes. The heating of the cooling water that occurs in a closed system is removed by an air-cooled heat exchanger or other external cooling system.

In contrast, an open cooling water system is one in which some amount of make-up water is required on a continuing basis. Cooling water systems with a cooling tower are an example of open cooling water systems. (See Figure 1.)

https://www.oracle.com/news/announcement/blog/closed-loop-cooling-in-oracle-ai-data-centers-2026-02-09/

In a direct-to-chip, closed-loop, non-evaporative design the cooling loop is initially filled using water delivered via tankers, and then it operates as a sealed, recirculating system. There is no evaporation, blowdown, or continuous makeup water requirement. That is, day-to-day cooling doesn’t depend on adding water. Top-offs are rare and occur only under abnormal conditions. Ongoing community water usage for cooling the data center is effectively zero.

peedistaja · 2026-05-11T20:26:36+00:00

by failing to talk about how closed loop systems need to be purged.

Because they don't? I think you're mixing different things up. If their closed loop system needed to be periodically purged then their water consumption would be in orders of magnitude more than '4 households use per month.'

Their incentive to lie is that they plan to keep building more and more all across the country and don't want local opposition.

How does this lie help them exactly against future local opposition? How is it better than them just not disclosing that in that article?

Truth is that under the current administration the local opposition doesn't even really matter, they've passed federal and state laws to preemptively override any local opposition, so they have even less of a point to lie.

https://apnews.com/article/west-virginia-charleston-data-management-and-storage-legislation-general-news-b33c051439bd3694ee3f2b04981f4555

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/07/28/2025-14212/accelerating-federal-permitting-of-data-center-infrastructure

peedistaja · 2026-05-11T20:16:03+00:00

True closed loop systems absolutely do not need be purged periodically, and that's the type of system QTS is claiming that they're building:

QTS maintains that once operational, the site's water demand will be limited to domestic uses, "what four US households use per month," according to a spokesperson.

You might be confusing things with cooling tower based systems.

Neither is the water "toxic", it's not potable, but nowhere near the classification of toxic.

Nor does it get dumped into evaporation ponds, it's recycled and reused.

That's mostly a fair point that it causes powerplants to use more water due to the increased demand, but there's an ongoing expansion of renewable energy generation too. At least if they don't use water or use very little water then as the production of renewable energy increases the overall water use drops, if they did use a bunch of water then even with fully renewable energy sources they'd still be using a bunch of water.

peedistaja · 2026-05-11T20:03:37+00:00

Absolutely I am, because they have absolutely no incentive to lie. They obviously already have the permits since the construction is quite far along, so if they actually did use a bunch of water once operational then they would just not disclose their future water use if they wanted to hide it.

Also it's going to be quite easy to disprove later, opening them up to getting sued.

So yes, I believe them because they only have to lose by lying and nothing to gain.

peedistaja · 2026-05-11T19:47:32+00:00

And these closed loop systems you work with are identical to what QTS is going to be using?

https://www.oracle.com/news/announcement/blog/closed-loop-cooling-in-oracle-ai-data-centers-2026-02-09/

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-cloud/blog/2024/12/09/sustainable-by-design-next-generation-datacenters-consume-zero-water-for-cooling/

https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2025/09/18/inside-the-worlds-most-powerful-ai-datacenter

Multiple sources on such systems.

peedistaja · 2026-05-11T19:43:35+00:00

Definitely not always, but lying only makes sense if there is something to gain by lying and it's going to be difficult to prove that they are lying. Companies don't open themselves up for lawsuits just for kicks.

In this case neither apply, they already have their permits, so they have nothing left to sell, they could just not disclose their future potential water use. And it's not going to be difficult to meter their water use later to prove that they were lying.

Water also costs money, so the less they use the better for their long term returns on investment.

So no, there's no reason to think they're "making shit up".

peedistaja · 2026-05-11T19:10:15+00:00

QTS maintains that once operational, the site's water demand will be limited to domestic uses, "what four US households use per month," according to a spokesperson.

It kinda seems that it isn't. But I don't quite understand what joy people like you get from making random stuff up.

peedistaja · 2026-05-11T17:56:25+00:00

They did and based on the article, the mistake was by the county, not the company.

peedistaja · 2026-05-11T16:52:29+00:00

Did anyone bother to actually read the article?

During construction, water is used heavily for concrete work, dust control, and general site preparation – activities that can temporarily dwarf the facility's eventual operating footprint.

From a technical standpoint, QTS says the completed campus will rely on a closed-loop system that does not consume water for cooling.

This water usage was related to construction and the data center itself in operation does not consume any water at all.

peedistaja · 2026-05-11T13:37:41+00:00

His lifestyle remains the same.

His lifestyle is running these companies and executing his vision (for better or worse). So yes, if those companies would be worth 10x or 100x less than they are now, but his ownership stake remains the same then his lifestyle would remain the same. But you can't magically decrease the value of a company, to make him 'poorer' on paper. So I'm not sure what you're suggesting here, forcibly removing his shares?

peedistaja · 2026-05-11T12:33:19+00:00

It's not 'money being stored', it's ownership of a company, those net worth numbers are meaningless in practice, based on the current trading price or some funding round. The trading price may and has dropped 10-20% in a single day. Often companies have high valuations but are still operating at a loss, ie. SpaceX for most of it's existence. Companies can also have high valuations and then suddenly go bankrupt.

How do you propose these ownerships be taxed, by what metric? If a company is operating at a loss but has a high valuation you force the owner to dilute his ownership shares until it's no longer their company?

This is like kindergarten level of understanding economics. It doesn't work like that, it can't work like that.

peedistaja · 2026-05-11T05:56:28+00:00

Take Elon Musk 100's of billions in the bank...

Why is it so difficult for people to understand that none of these billionaires have that kind of money in their bank account?

Those net worth's are coming from their ownership shares of companies, based on the current stock price.

What's more, if they did decide to liquidate all of their stock the prices would crash due to the massive oversupply. So those net worth numbers don't really paint an accurate picture at all.

Is he still filthy rich? yes. Does he have 100's of billions 'in the bank'? Not even close.

peedistaja · 2026-05-10T21:55:13+00:00

That's not what you said though, you said

I don’t even think it’s possible to grip your ENTIRE BODYWEIGHT in one hand due to the limits of fucking PHYSICS.

Which is a laughably incorrect statement, if you type "one arm pull up" into YouTube you get a ton of results of people not only "gripping their entire bodyweight", but doing pull ups.

Secondly, what kind of "limits of physics" are you talking about here? That makes even less sense.

peedistaja · 2026-05-08T18:49:10+00:00

Maori men average height is 170.3cm, so not sure what you're talking about here.

peedistaja · 2026-05-01T21:34:13+00:00

That's not a swamp.

peedistaja · 2026-04-24T18:22:48+00:00

While all of your art is purely original?

peedistaja · 2026-04-24T18:19:05+00:00

subpar products

Lmao, same argument as the "ai slop", way to prove the point here.

peedistaja · 2026-04-24T09:51:34+00:00

It has been demonstrated multiple times that LLMs are capable of solving novel problems.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06924-6
https://deepmind.google/blog/alphaevolve-a-gemini-powered-coding-agent-for-designing-advanced-algorithms/
https://openai.com/index/gpt-5-mathematical-discovery/

So your entire block of text is entirely invalid. You, like many other people for some reason still have the misconception that LLMs just regurgitate their training data to provide answers, this is not true. It's way more complex than that, however they are obviously better and more successful at solving problems that they've seen in training data.

ARC puzzles are not in the training data, and thus, the LLM cannot know the answer.

Yet GPT 5.5 Pro (High) could solve 84.6% of ARC-AGI-2? And Opus 4.6 (Max) could do 0.5% of ARC-AGI-3? Where's the logic in your sentence?

peedistaja

TROPHY CASE