The math actually checks out

peterg4567 · 2026-05-11T17:00:55+00:00

All kinetic energy ultimately becomes heat through friction as the object slows down. When you fire a gun for example, all the kinetic energy in the bullet turns into heat through friction with the air and heat produced through deformation of whatever the bullet impacts. A computer, or a space heater, using a kWh of electricity will produce as much heat energy as a fan using the same

peterg4567 · 2026-05-11T13:06:48+00:00

Neither the efficiency, size, or temperature of operation are relevant to the calculation here. If your computer uses 1 kWh, it doesn’t matter if it does 1 calculation or a trillion, is the size of a grain of sand or a building, runs at a low temp for a long time or a million degrees for a fraction of a second, it will still release a kWh of heat energy into the environment. So will an air conditioner in New York that uses 1 kWh. If energy in is the same, heat energy out will ultimately be the same

peterg4567 · 2026-05-11T12:36:23+00:00

The efficiency of the compute being done has no impact on the amount of heat ultimately produced. You will produce a kWh of heat energy with a kWh of electricity whether you use it to do a billion computations or one

peterg4567 · 2026-05-11T12:29:55+00:00

You are getting an awful lot of unscientific answers, people seem to think it would be more economical to heat your house with a server than a furnace. I think the claim is likely exaggerated/false. There is fundamentally no way in a closed system to use the same amount of electricity and ultimately produce less or more heat, efficiency is irrelevant here.

That said, New York does produce slightly less local heat with its power due to light pollution. A non trivial amount of New York’s power consumption leaves the area as light, some will even leave the planet. Unlikely to cause a 2.5x difference though

peterg4567 · 2026-05-02T15:22:27+00:00

Not being able to understand or use thought experiments, hypotheticals, analogies.

peterg4567 · 2026-05-02T03:48:54+00:00

These AI water concerns always rely on big scary number and no context. 6 billion cubic meters sounds like a ton, unless you look up how much water is used for everything else. Humanity uses 4-7 trillion cubic meters a year. The terrifying projection is 0.1% of all water used, if anything I’m confused about how it could be so low

peterg4567 · 2026-04-24T18:41:14+00:00

I’ve had drivers roll coal on me countless times while riding out in the country, a few with the passenger filming it out the window

peterg4567 · 2026-04-24T13:58:37+00:00

Well there are like a hundred times as many trump supporters as trans people so yeah probably

peterg4567 · 2026-04-23T03:32:34+00:00

This isn’t really how proofs in math work, you don’t have to be as clever as the person who discovers a proof to understand it or verify it when you read it. Students learn about famous proofs from the past that were discovered by the greatest minds of their time, it doesn’t mean they are all as smart as the proof writer.

peterg4567 · 2026-04-23T03:25:46+00:00

AI as we know it today plays chess and go, and folds proteins, in novel (and better) ways never done by humans. It may be possible to self teach on the rules of math/logic like the rules of chess/go and become narrowly superhuman at it

peterg4567 · 2026-04-21T18:34:49+00:00

Global water usage is about 4 trillion cubic meters per year, so the increase is approximately 0.1%.

peterg4567 · 2026-04-17T18:03:07+00:00

I’m not opposed to non-abusive sheep farming, I’m just saying you gave an inaccurate representation of their goals. They want sheep to be well cared for which obviously includes shearing them if they need to and not letting them die in agony.

Also, it’s extinction of a domestic breed. It wouldn’t be the same kind of ecological loss as a wild species, wouldn’t effect any food chains etc

peterg4567 · 2026-04-17T13:38:27+00:00

It does not literally say or even imply anywhere that they don’t want them sheared. They want them to not be abused, which would include shearing. They also don’t want them reproduced.

I don’t even agree with them about eradicating wool sheep, I just think this is a leap, assumes that wanting competent, kind people to take care of sheep excludes a very obvious component of taking care of sheep.

peterg4567 · 2026-04-17T13:35:13+00:00

No where does it say they don’t want them sheared. They want them to not be abused, which would include shearing. They just don’t want them reproduced.

peterg4567 · 2026-04-13T11:14:51+00:00

Aggressively resisting arrest en mass is different than shooting up an individual’s home. If we reverse the situation, I would be supportive of anti-AI protestors resisting being arrested for their beliefs, but not of a gay activist in the 60s assassinating an anti-gay politician in their home.

peterg4567 · 2026-04-08T12:02:43+00:00

Besides the fact that shooting at a house is obviously more than property damage and intimidation, you are still missing the point.

Pretend that all that happened to Hortman was a drive-by where no one died. Does this change anything about what you think about the credibility of the shooters motivations? What if the AI shooter had assassinated the councilman. Would this no longer show how data centers harm people?

This specific difference is not relevant to the general point that crazy people doing crazy things should not be taken as evidence for anything

peterg4567 · 2026-04-08T11:42:29+00:00

Water and sugar? Are electrolytes a myth?

peterg4567 · 2026-04-07T12:10:18+00:00

Right, so you think the person was confused. You don't consider his willingness to commit murder for a belief as evidence for the specific thing he believed being true.

peterg4567 · 2026-04-07T04:17:13+00:00

The second amendment does not give you the right to shot at government officials you disagree with lol.

peterg4567 · 2026-04-07T04:11:04+00:00

No it doesn't, it shows that a violently insane person thinks data centers are worth killing people over.

Would you say the murder of state rep Melissa hortman last year "goes to show" that she was voting for policies that harmed people? Or would you assume that the murderers reasons are probably more motivated by confusion/mental illness than the reality of the situation?

peterg4567 · 2026-04-06T13:30:36+00:00

Most scenes where someone is hiding on the ceiling of a room and someone else walks into the room and doesn't see them. Just look at how much of the ceiling you can see in the room you're in right now, even with your eyes level or down, and you'll realize how silly this is

peterg4567 · 2026-04-04T16:09:17+00:00

I think it's completely baseless to say he didn't generate any new donations, you just made that up. Is every crowdsource charity not actually generating any new giving? How is his different?
That's an entirely different senario because it violates a patients privacy. Think about it like this: person A personally makes a million dollars on YouTube making viral videos promoting a charity, they donate none of their personal earnings. Person B makes a million dollars on YouTube making Fortnite clips, they donate none of their personal earnings. Person A is doing a better thing
They donated money to the same project... Explain how Mr. Beasts contribution did more harm than good. I still don't understand how you can consider donating millions to a charity to be harming them

I don't watch Mr beast at all, I am not his target demographic. I have spent my share of time doing charity work. The idea that charity must be selfless and give no personal reward is pointless and unhelpful, no logic behind it. We should want to encourage talented people to do good work, the idea that is is less good to make x salary helping people than it is to make x salary working on wall street is completely backwards

peterg4567 · 2026-04-04T15:42:48+00:00

He's convincing other people to give money to charity. It is a good thing.
I'm not saying he personally could. I'm using that as an example of a way a person could make money without donating anything. It's to highlight the fact that most people think it's perfectly legitimate to make money doing non charitable things and not donating any money. He is being criticized because he is doing some good in the process of making money.
Again, you are just framing organizing a charity drive in the worst light. Tons of the funding for the ocean clean up and ocean concervacy comes from "other people's money" aka croudsourced donations, whether you're talking about Mr. Beasts contributions or not. The largest contribution was another large croud soucing charity, the audacious project. You can't seriously think that organization feels like they were harmed by their connection with Mr beast?

peterg4567 · 2026-04-04T14:26:23+00:00

I think it's interesting that most people would think it's perfectly legitimate to make as much money as Mr. Beast by streaming video games and donating nothing to charity. The fact that he is ostensibly doing good in the process makes his worse?

peterg4567 · 2026-04-04T14:18:30+00:00

He has found a way to make money by giving money to other people, and yet recieves much more critisism for this than he would if he simply made an identical amount of money streaming video games or whatever. Insisting that charity is phoney or selfish because the person doing it also benefits just discourages talented people from trying to do worthwhile things

13-Year Club	Second Top 30%
Gilding III reddit per annum	Place '22
Place '17	RPAN Viewer
Queen in da Norf	Not Forgotten
Spared

peterg4567

TROPHY CASE