Are we back to magic water and magic soil? Does the energy have some morality attached to it?

The emissions per kWh of energy used in providing internet downloads probably is similar to that per kWh of energy used for washing clothes.

You're not seriously trying to explain that a kWh is equal to a kWh. Why not cut the crap? Are you trying to say washing clothes is of equal importance to convenience features in a browser, given that we can use each clean kWh only once? I can't tell what you truly mean like this

>a kWh is equal to a kWh

Yes, and it's none of your business how other people spend their electricity.

That's where we disagree. With our current system so reliant on fossil fuels, every kWh generated is a debt to our planet, our society.

Until that's resolved, I don't wish that debt incurred for frivolous uses.

What do you mean you "disagree"? I pay for the electricity I use and I use it however I want.

Instead of trying to control other people, why can't you start with yourself? Throw away your phone/computer. Go live in a small hut. Practice what you preach.

You read what I wrote, you just chose not to engage with it and went into an ideological creed instead.

You may pay for it, but I and the rest of the planet incur the cost.

I can go live the life of a hermit and the above will still be true.

Your electricity use puts more pollution into our air. It burns our forests. It kills species we all depend on.

No man is an island. Your actions affect others. Just paying your indulgences does not make that basic fact away.

You are not paying for the total cost of the electricity you use.

You pay for a portion of it, in money.

The other portion of it is belched up into the atmosphere for future generations to pay.

You are incurring debt and forcing it upon others.

>You are incurring debt and forcing it upon others.

You seem to have no problem whatsoever with using electricity yourself. So when do you get to tell me (or anyone else) how to live? And when does it stop? Btw, this is all bizarrely dramatic since we were talking about small local models anyway.

>future generations

Yeah, and some will also say (using the same arguments) that having children is harmful to the planet and we need "measures" to limit that too.

I’m not telling you to do one thing or another. I’m taking issue with your argument that because you pay an electric bill, it follows that you can do whatever you want.

That does not follow logically for me. As humans we disagree about many things, but we generally agree that things that we do often affect others, so one way or another, we need to come together and decide which things are agreed to be acceptable and which things are not.

And I'm not inclined to entertain this nonsense, not even as a hypothetical. I'm not giving up on my most basic and fundamental rights, doubly so when these draconian restrictions won't apply to the people who want to impose them.

Why do you get to tell me (or anyone else) how to live? Why do you get to decide that burning my forest is acceptable?

Not interested, go away.

I have to tell you something: there is consumer demand for AI.

We'll never know, since companies seem determined to make it non-optional.

This is a very good way to put it.

AI is being pushed so hard from the top down by every executive (who have been practically foaming at the mouth about AI for years now) it might as well be extruding from every port and seam on people's devices as if it were a buzzword/fomo diarrhea of some sort.

I for one would love to see someone try and shove hamburgers down everybody's throats in order to increase consumer demand.

Unless they mean another "f word", the f word was used in Apollo 10. It's just that the transcripts change it to "freaking": > Oh, shit' What they did, they made it a two - Ain't this smart' Ain't that a smart freaking sack.

( https://apollojournals.org/afj/ap10fj/as10-day2-pt9.html )

It can be found in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQVEsfa15SY

> Are you reading things before agreeing with them?

No, unlike yourself, I'm just a random brainless bot.

That Biden stretched the definition for a questionable purpose doesn't change the original intent.

Have you read the DPA? How did you come to your inclusions on its intent? How do you think Biden stretched the definition here?

There is nothing in the DPA implying companies it is applied to can't be acting in a hostile manner, or that it can't be applied when security interests of the US are being threatened. Of course they have no reason to state such a distinction repeatedly in law (claiming it doesn't apply to adversarial companies....), but 50 USC 4566 applies clearly when acts are being made against national interest (this pertains to foreign investment, which isn't the nature of the Anthropic rift, but shows clearly the DPA contains laws with intent of preventing adversarial action against the US).

Even without knowing the intent of the behaviour, it should be quite clear that companies that are vital to national security are more likely to be supply chain risks. Amodei's direct words were: > These latter two threats are inherently contradictory: one labels us a security risk; the other labels Claude as essential to national security. Being a security risk and essential to national security are not "inherently contradictory".

The claim they went into effect January 1 simply does not seem true.

The finished products tariff was delayed: https://edition.cnn.com/2026/01/01/business/trump-furniture-... For unfinished lumber, I don't think there was any tariff going into effect January 1.

Sure, these tariffs may further increase the house of prices (e.g. be relevant to 15% of the cost of the house, with tariffs ranging from 20% to 50% and sources of materials adjusting to these tariffs), but the say 4% future effect of these tariffs is likely less than the effect of zoning laws, other development restrictions, and rent freezing.

I think you're getting your facts wrong: https://edition.cnn.com/2026/01/01/business/trump-furniture-...

"President Donald Trump has delayed new tariff increases on upholstered furniture, kitchen cabinets, and vanities for a year, pushing their implementation to 2027, according to a White House statement."

You're right, I probably got some of the increases delayed.

But those are increases on top of the already high tariffs.

I agree with you, they'll probably worsen the effect, and I assume this is maybe 5% in the long run from all these tariffs (if they're not cancelled).

I agree with the first half of what you posted, but immediately jumping to blaming tariffs in your last paragraph seems weak (and a slight attempt at a gotcha).

Concrete, gypsum and steel are primarily domestically produced. Similar goes for wood (although a substantial amount is imported, e.g. from Canada - the tariffs range from 25% to 50%). Labour & Materials may make up say 60% of the cost of a house, but only 50% of this is likely materials, with likely a minority of the materials tariffed.

What is likely to actually reduce rent and house prices is making development permission and laws more lax, as well as preventing rent control.

Tariffs on products like lumber and cabinetry were introduced or raise on January 1st of this year. It's an additional factor that will make a bad situation worse.

You can't tell me that increasing the pricing of construction materials won't have negative pressure on home construction.

> Materials may make up say 60% of the cost of a house, but only 50% of this is likely materials, with likely a minority of the materials tariffed.

And where does the construction equipment come from? The parts to repair that construction equipment? The parts that go into the trucks that the workers drive to the job site?

Focusing on a single input is myopic when the tariffs are so widespread that they touch everything.

I have agreed tariffs will have an effect, but I'm not being myopic.

Lot costs, builder profits, indirect labour (commissioning, financial and legal affairs, advertising) all are far less affected by tariffs. Machine costs could make up 15% of your "labour and material" cost but depreciation and repair purchases are still only 30% of this, with of course not all of this affected by tariffs.

It seems wholly reasonable to believe that the long term effects of a tariff policy like these on housing costs could indeed be in the ballpark of 5%, as I claim, because in fact housing development is less affected by this.

I'm not sure if you trust this for consensus, but you could try asking an AI to give an estimate of the long-term impact for you. Here's what Gemini 3 Pro said to "Estimate the increase Trump's current tariffs, if long term, would have on price of new housing developments."

> Total Home Price Impact: This translates to a roughly 3% to 4% increase in the final purchase price for the consumer.

I don't think the hatch act is supposed to prevent the use of the White House account for political purposes. It seems like basically every administration with an X account has done this, e.g.: https://x.com/WhiteHouse46/status/1662171756830892032 .

Although there are probably more contentious case with other government agencies.

The Hatch act just makes them more careful about what they say when an election is imminent. It's not a blanket ban on "politics."

That seems like it could have been a headline in a nonpartisan newspaper.

A nonpartisan newspaper could also condemn or blame a political party for an action. But if all of its posts were supportive of one administration, it would no longer be partisan.

You can just look through the old white house accounts. For example this tweet https://x.com/WhiteHouse46/status/1879171105044181097 , "While Congressional Republicans refused to pass a bipartisan border security agreement, President Biden took action and encounters today are the lowest since July 2020."

Looking through the tweets, you'll see it's not nonpartisan and isn't supposed to be.

Neon has updated their pricing plans to be usage based. Their free tier has decreased to offering a maximum of 50 compute hours per project (down from 190), but now offers a total 500 compute hours across up to 10 projects (rather than 190).

I think the article is highly exaggerating Starbuck's role at meta, and serves more of a role in being polemical. The WSJ have themselves reported on it: https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/meta-robby-starbuck-ai-lawsuit-s....

Likely because of the polemics of the article and its headline, many people in this thread are misinformed as to what Starbuck's role will be and that this came about as the result of a settlement.

There is also the joint statement posted by Joel Kaplan on X (likely the source for many articles): https://x.com/joel_kaplan/status/1953778908915982793 "Building on that work, Meta and Robby Starbuck will work collaboratively in the coming months to continue to find ways to address issues of ideological and political bias and minimize the risk that the model returns hallucinations in response to user queries."