You are all being manipulated (fear mongered). This is rediculous.
And I'm still for forcing them to circulate their water loops, by law.
I know people LOOOOOOVE to use how many bajillion gallons (wtf is a gallon? is that a bucket? learn to use litres) AI data centers use, without looking into how much that is as a percentage of total water use:
Basis: 322 billion US gallons per day, equivalent to 117.53 trillion gallons per year. Percentages are calculated against total US water withdrawals in 2015. (USGS)
| Category | Annual volume, trillion US gallons | Share of total US water withdrawals | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total US water withdrawals | 117.530 | 100.000% | USGS, 2015 (USGS) |
| Thermoelectric power | 48.545 | 41.304% | USGS: 133 billion gal/day (USGS) |
| Irrigation | 43.070 | 36.646% | USGS: 118 billion gal/day (USGS) |
| Public supply | 14.235 | 12.112% | USGS: 39.0 billion gal/day (USGS) |
| Industrial, self-supplied | 5.402 | 4.596% | USGS: 14.8 billion gal/day (USGS) |
| Aquaculture | 2.756 | 2.345% | USGS: 7.55 billion gal/day (USGS) |
| Mining | 1.460 | 1.242% | USGS: 4.00 billion gal/day (USGS) |
| Domestic, self-supplied | 1.190 | 1.012% | USGS: 3.26 billion gal/day (USGS) |
| Livestock | 0.730 | 0.621% | USGS: 2.00 billion gal/day (USGS) |
| All data centers: direct water consumption, 2023 | 0.0174 | 0.0148% | LBNL: 66 billion liters (LBNL) |
| All data centers: direct plus electricity-related consumption, 2023 | 0.2288 | 0.1947% | LBNL: 66 billion liters direct plus nearly 800 billion liters indirect (LBNL) |
| AI servers: annual scenario estimate, 2024–2030 | 0.193–0.297 | 0.164–0.253% | Nature Sustainability: 731–1,125 million m³ per year (Nature Sustainability) |
The first eight categories add up to 99.879%. The small difference from 100% is caused by rounding in the USGS daily figures.
The data-center and AI rows represent water-consumption footprints, while the USGS sector rows represent water withdrawals. They are included for scale comparison and should not be added to the sector totals.
Wait. If you say "remigration" means "ethnic cleansing", does that not mean that "migration" effectively means "ethnic desecration"? 🤔
Wild take, man!
Am I correct in my guess that you don't think that the way we're currently not handling mass-migration is an issue? Sad if you don't.
They think all the problems come from migrants.
Thing is: there's a few migrants causing most of the issues, but because the rules are so protective, we can't get rid of these few assholes, so now people want to get rid of all migrants.
If we were able to get rid of the few asshole migrants, things would not be the issue they are today.
Just remember kids: Race is not a legitimate concept. There is no "black race" or "white race", and if you still believe that: You're a Racist.
Remigration
eh, should have called it "dereplacement migration" or something.
edit: Note that this "replacement migration" is already happening to the Netherlands. The native populations of the Frisians, Franks and Saxons are declining, while our total population is still growing. I never asked for that; I never voted for that; I don't know anyone who has.
paying billions in taxes
And how much do they cost us? When people immigrate, they are a short-term cost to the country (as all migrants are). Question is: do they make us money in the long term. For many countries, the answer is no: "The Long-Term Fiscal Impact of Immigrants in the Netherlands, Differentiated by Motive, Source Region and Generation"
How many houses do they take in (there's a 400k houses short in the Netherlands, for example; we build 70k houses a year, but take in 100k migrants (300k in - 200k out = 100k net growth) plus another 100k babies that are born. Where is everybody supposed to live?
Then there's the nitrous-crisis that we're dealing with, which means we CAN'T just "build more houses", and those that are being built can't connect to the electricity grid, because there's a waiting list because the VVD decided back in 2008 that investing in our grid for the future wasn't of their concern...
Fuck mass migration, and fuck you for only seeing people as economic units. I'm fucking pissed.
Just 6% of global emissions originate there.
That would make us #4 for "Share of World": https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by-country. Not insignificant.
3.3 billion tonnes CO2 per year (2024): https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/w/ddn-20260123-1
With a population of 449.2 million (2024) https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/w/ddn-20240711-1
That's about ~7.34 tonnes per capita (which would make us ~35th highest per-capita producer)
Not bad for 27 countries.
And it's the year of the Linux Desktop! What a coincidence!
nothing substantive
You were saying? 🤨
Lemmy, this is the fourth year in a row that "OpenAI bankrupts soon" articles are being posted:
| Year | Article | Explicit bankruptcy claim |
|---|---|---|
| 2023 | Business Today — “OpenAI might go bankrupt by end of 2024”, August 12, 2023 | OpenAI could go bankrupt by the end of 2024 because of ChatGPT’s high operating costs, mounting losses and dependence on continued Microsoft funding. |
| 2024 | ITPro — “OpenAI could go bankrupt in 12 months if it doesn’t raise some serious cash”, August 7, 2024 | OpenAI could go bankrupt within twelve months unless it secured substantial additional financing. |
| 2025 | Braden Kelley — “Is OpenAI About to Go Bankrupt?”, December 4, 2025 | The article explicitly asks whether OpenAI is “on the brink of bankruptcy” and argues that its spending and business model may be financially unsustainable. |
| 2026 | Windows Central — “OpenAI might torch $14 billion in 2026, hitting bankruptcy by next year”, January 20, 2026 | OpenAI could burn through approximately $14 billion during 2026 and face bankruptcy by mid-2027. |
OpenAI isn't going anywhere.
view more:
next ›