this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2024
60 points (95.5% liked)

Technology

59358 readers
4505 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 17 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)

This seems... idk, ideal? Lets use our cleanest & most energy dense means of power generation for our most frivolously expanding waste of energy. Unless we give microsoft authority over the DOE, which we aren't (maybe IBM tho, they seem like they can be trusted...), I'm not really seeing a downside to this.

[–] stupidcasey@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago (1 children)

IBM can be trusted, lol how easily history forgets.

  1. Involvement with Nazi Germany: During the 1930s and early 1940s.

  2. Apartheid-era South Africa

  3. Antitrust issues, In the 1970s, IBM was the subject of a major antitrust lawsuit by the U.S. government.

  4. disposal of hazardous waste from manufacturing facilities.

  5. outsourcing of jobs to other countries.

  6. IBM has faced multiple lawsuits and investigations for age discrimination.

  7. lobbying for government surveillance .​

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Congrats, you got the joke!

[–] Vash63@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

Ideal would be them not reversing a decade of energy savings in the name of AI, but yeah, if they're going to do that anyway then Nuclear is one of the better options.

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Yeah... But why is this being pushed so hard? When the billionaire owned media pushes a message this hard, I can't help but look for the terrible consequences I'm missing

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I think in this case it's not exceptionally nefarious, just greedy. They'll save boatloads of money (and be able to centralize their facilities) if these reactors get approved, instead of being forced to pay to upgrade the municipal infrastructure because of the terrific strain they're placing on it. A massive power source, all for them? Hot diggity.

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 1 points 3 weeks ago

Well, I think most of them are trying to get the government to split the bill, which I don't love but I could live with. If they get small scale nuclear working, we might finally actually reduce fossil fuel usage for once

I just feel like the other shoe is about to drop. Are they going to push to run them themselves, with minimal oversight? Do billionaires want to buy privately owned nuclear reactors for their bunkers?

I don't know how this is going to turn bad, I just have a bad feeling

[–] takeda@lemmy.world -3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Couldn't that power be used to take control over Bitcoin chain?

[–] Warl0k3@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Tbh we probably already have that. Five Eyes is wildly held to control 50% of the TOR nodes, bitcoin cant be that much less of a priority.

[–] 14th_cylon@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

no. safety of bitcoin is based on cryptography, not lack of electrical power. that would be most bizarre case of security through obscurity.

[–] 0x0@programming.dev 2 points 1 month ago

They probably meant mining.

[–] someacnt_@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

So I missed out on US nuclear stock? Damn