- nullspace@lemmy.worldEnglish22 hours
I’m surprised the 49ers haven’t already built a data center right next to their stadium.
- MochiGoesMeow@lemmy.zipEnglish1 day
There is insane amount of impact on health that I was not aware possible until this past 2 years. I can see countries using it as a weapon if they tune it.
- MilitantAtheist@lemmy.worldEnglish2 days
Yeah, but do you know what’s super useful? Molotov cocktails.
- ramenshaman@lemmy.worldEnglish2 days
Not sure how effective that would be unless you were able to get inside the building and could strategically deliver them.
What you really need is a drone that can drop thermite, then lower a small EMP device into the hole.
- rumba@lemmy.zipEnglish2 days
Just tax the fucking things already. Fuck tax breaks and kick out any administrators who take the bribes and go against the wishes of their constituents.
- Insekticus@aussie.zoneEnglish2 days
Woah woah woah, let’s not get hasty. I say we dismember the administrators for taking bribes. Why just kick them out?
- luciferofastora@feddit.orgEnglish24 hours
Because violence tends to either escalate or peter out. Either you run out of people that support you or you eventually force the government to throw all its might at suppressing you. Unless you are very well-prepared, organised and have sufficient and resilient support, it might fail and not achieve much other than provide further pretext for crackdown.
Historically, non-violent resistance has a good track record, if (and only if) it is targeted well and applied with resilience and persistence. It has a potential to galvanise the participants, stir people into action (which helps with recruiting more) and cast the injustice of a violent system into relief.
Mind, non-violently doesn’t mean writing stern letters or standing on the wayside looking pissed. It absolutely includes disrupting, getting in the way, being a nuisance, being impossible to ignore. The Nashville sit-ins, for example, obstructed the business of lunch counters that refused to serve black people by taking up spots reserved for the people that the establishment would actually like to do business with. In our example, people might occupy the offices of the corrupt administrators, asking to talk to them and making them listen to their constituents in the most literal way, refusing to leave until they get results.
It most certainly will be considered some form of unlawful conduct and will possibly be met with force. The police will be called and start making arrests. But a well-organised and patient campaign to coerce the corrupt officials into rescinding their decisions or resigning (at which point their successors will be subjected to the same demand) doesn’t need to hurt people.
It just needs to erode their will until complying with the demands looks like the most bearable option.
- moustachio@lemmy.worldEnglish2 days
Why wouldn’t you do that to the board of directors of the companies bribing the officials? When removing weeds you need to pull out the roots.
2 daysAh, the chimpanzee method.
It really weirds me out that gratuitous violence as a response to societal injustice is so common on Lemmy, if not across Humanity as a whole. Like let’s say this back-to-basics style of justice comes about in modern society and all the relevant assholes are subjected to it. What then? At least, what would the violence even be in the name of? Retribution? How is that productive in any way?
I realize this is a pretty disproportionate response to a relatively banal comment, but I see sentiments such as this one (either intended as sarcasm or not) so often here that I’m essentially using this as a catch-all spot for my thoughts on it.
I’ll just end this tangent with a quote about this sort of thing from a guy way smarter than me (and I promise I’m not just trying to be pretentious it actually applies.)
Absolute freedom mocks at justice. Absolute justice denies freedom. To be fruitful, the two ideas must find their limits in each other. - My buddy Albert Camus
- lightnsfw@reddthat.comEnglish1 day
Maybe it’s because treating these amoral shitheads lightly has led us where we are today. They can’t be rehabilitated. They have no interest in being better people. If they’re eliminated they can’t come back to fuck shit up for everyone else anymore. They’re fundamentally broken human beings and should be discarded.
I don’t disagree, but we shouldn’t kid ourselves by getting rid of them in the name of some abstract value like revenge or justice. It should be a means of getting rid of what essentially amounts to a disease in humanity, nothing more. Pulling the lever in the trolley problem, basically.
We also can’t really say that getting rid of the current one-percent will solve the problem once and for all. As far as human civilization has existed there’s always been a group like that. There needs to be systematic prevention of such a group ever coming about in the first place.
If there’s no immediate resolution that we can all definitively see to the problem of disproportionate distribution of wealth, then nobody will be able to agree on when to stop the correctional acts. I mean, who’s to say when justice has been served? Hardly anyone can agree on what justice even is when it comes down to it, considering how it’s a concept that only really exists in human imagination. The French Revolution was great until the revolutionaries basically went nuts and started killing almost anyone who so much as criticized their methods. That shouldn’t be a possibility.
- lightnsfw@reddthat.comEnglish1 day
Of course there needs to be guidelines to to ensure things don’t get out of hand but systematic violence is still violence and violence is still necessary to that extent.
I think you are just seeing the pot boil over more and more.
It wasn’t like this 2 years ago.
- Insekticus@aussie.zoneEnglish2 days
Yeah, the violence would be in the name of justice and retribution!
The chimpanzee method, as you call it, is the best form of justice for those sub-human billionaire and multi-millionaire urchins who kill, rape, and eat children.
Unless, of course, you’re okay with that form of violence? Are you okay with the violence inherent in the capitalist system?
Like where do you draw the line for violence and retribution?
Don’t put words in my mouth, they taste too salty.
To an extent violence is an effective tool: that I can definitely agree with. There’s never been any social progress without blood being shed on some level.
It’s when it turns into a gratuitous means of communal catharsis that it becomes inherently counterintuitive by serving no other practical outcome than creating murderers and dehumanizers out of progressives. And these sub-humans and urchins you speak of are, whether you like it or not, extremely human, and even further than that are direct products of the societies that we’ve been complacent in for our entire lives and, likewise, we are also products of.
So to answer your question clearly, I draw the line at violence when it’s in the name of the abstract: not only because I oppose things like the death penalty as a matter of principle, but because violence for an ideal or ideals is valuable to no one and nothing. No one gains anything material by destroying for the sake of it. It’s just that: destructive. Something I wish we humans learned a long time ago, but I digress.
- zqps@sh.itjust.worksEnglish2 days
Benn Jordan leveraged his expertise in audio engineering to investigate this phenomenon. Do watch.
Benn Jordan is a gem, do yourself a favor and just go watch all his stuff.
His latest on robot dogs is amazingly well-executed and researched with terrifying conclusions.
- Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish1 day
Listen to his music, too! It’s amazing! I’ve seen him a few times and one time the equipment at the festival didn’t work so he just improvised his whole set. He was insanely good at it. So much vocoder, it was delightful!
- fartographer@lemmy.worldEnglish1 day
My initial reaction was, “why is Jon Hamm in this video and what happened to his voice?”
- captainlezbian@lemmy.worldEnglish2 days
We need an anarchist Mr. Rogers. Just someone pure of heart to talk to kids about taking care of their neighbors no matter what the government says. Little everyday lessons in consensus and how to deal with the conflicts that arise when different people have different big feelings. How everyone is special just for being themselves and we should encourage our neighbors to be their unique selves.
- Cethin@lemmy.zipEnglish1 day
I don’t disagree, but I feel like the actual Mr. Rogers probably created a lot of Anarchists on his own! I think everything he teaches is not just cohesive with, but runs parallel to, Anarchist teachings. Taking care of yourself and your community is the foundation of Anarchism. I don’t know if being explicit would necessarily help, and it could push some people away from hearing the message.
He was too friendly with cops though.
- Treczoks@lemmy.worldEnglish2 days
Have a number of big fans run at almost the same frequency, and you get an onslaught of waves at the differences of those frequencies.
As they are all nearly the same speed/frequency, the differences will be infrasound, which causes a lot of odd effects on people, like anxiety.
- justaman123@lemmy.worldEnglish2 days
So basically the data centers could alleviate their sound problems by having all their fans run at opposite frequencies to cancel our the sound through deconstructive interference
- Echo Dot@feddit.ukEnglish1 day
No because the problem only exists because of differences in the frequencies the fans actually run at. If they all run it exactly the same frequency it would just be a loud hum which would be annoying but fine.
So if they got control of their fan frequencies to the level necessary to do what your suggesting they could just have them all run at the same frequency anyway and alleviate the problem that way. But they won’t because that kind of fan control isn’t really possible.
The real solution would be some kind of soundproofing and maybe not building massive data centres in populated areas.
- justaman123@lemmy.worldEnglish1 day
Why isn’t that kind of fan control possible? It’s probably just not possible now because of the way fans are configured currently.
Because fans are not highly tuneable devices?
They vary greatly, even within the same device, even at the same rpm.
- 2 days
And do something that’s good for people at virtually no expense? Haha, no.
- Treczoks@lemmy.worldEnglish1 day
The problem is that you cannot get them synced sufficiently. You basically have to route the complete air flow through a padded chamber to dampen their own and the derived sounds.
- justaman123@lemmy.worldEnglish1 day
Let’s get a grant going and do some tests. Surely if you get a couple of jet engine generators next to each other and fiddle with their frequencies you can get some deconstructive interference. I suspect though that there might be some loss in efficiency, and no data center wants higher fuel costs. Only one way to find out though let’s get this science funded
- justaman123@lemmy.worldEnglish2 days
Isn’t it really difficult to soundproof against the low frequency noises?
- stringere@sh.itjust.worksEnglish2 days
Just use corrugated cardboard and with longer sine waves, duh!
I am not an audio engineer but you might have a point in that the longer low sound waves would be harder to block.
Where my audiophiles at? We need a sound check on low frequency blocking.
Edit:
Found an article on a crypto mining facility mitigating noise issues.https://noisemonitoringservices.com/data-center-noise-control/
- stringere@sh.itjust.worksEnglish2 days
https://www.soundtrace.com/blog/data-center-noise-levels-hearing-conservation-osha-compliance
Also found an article stating that underwater data centers would be the best way to reduce noise. Ignoring that sound travels better underwater and combined with heating the water around them, it would massively disrupt untold amounts of marine life, sure!
- Skyrmir@lemmy.worldEnglish2 days
The US has a serious problem with who is able to sue for what damages when it comes to pollution. Depending on if it’s noise, water, or air, the legal codes are not effective at protecting property or people.
- PapaStevesy@lemmy.worldEnglish1 day
Almost, they’re not effective at protecting the property or people negatively affected by the pollution because they were specifically designed to protect the people doing the polluting and their “property” (read: capital).
- IratePirate@feddit.orgEnglish2 days
Depending on if it’s noise, water, or air, the legal codes are not effective at protecting property or people.
Boy, it’s almost like those are meant to protect something and someone else… Hm… 🤔
- 15 hours
As SCOTUS keeps ruling (most recently, yesterday) corporations are people (id est, have rights) but human beings are not (don’t have rights).
- 15 hours
It is. And also game companies know that crunching their developers to meet deadlines actually makes things worse, that there have been studies and yet they crunch anyway.
When people have too much power, too often they rule based on vibes rather than on what science and history has shown works.
- Aufgehtsabgehts@feddit.orgEnglish2 days
The same argument is used by opponents of wind energy - Infrasound is having bad effects on their health. People do say that while living next to roads that are producing infrasound multiple times louder than wind turbines ever could.
It’s a nice argument if you need it.
- Echo Dot@feddit.ukEnglish1 day
How on earth do wind turbines produce infrared sound? The huge things there’s no way they can achieve the necessary vibrations to produce audio let alone in for sound it’s just stupid.
The infra sound has been produced from the high pressure wakes generated in the heat exhaust
- Aufgehtsabgehts@feddit.orgEnglish20 hours
I am not sure if I get your point. Sound so deep, that humans can’t here it, is below 20 Hz. So beeing huge helps to produce such low frequencies - bigger wind turbines produce more intense infrasound than smaller ones. Infrasound is also produced by wind blowing over the landscape and by waves on the beach.
- MartianRecon@lemmus.orgEnglish2 days
There’s documented proof of this being measured by multiple people.
A windmill is literally only a visual blight.
we’ve had data centres for 40 years how did this only recently come up in America?
Ngl didn’t read the article
- SUDO@reddthat.comEnglish2 days
Ooh a question I can answer. I will make the answer as neutral as I can just explaining the differences of old Data Centers and new ones.
I worked in several data centers (DC). But all were air cooled. These AI DCs are also called Hyper scales. They need liquid due to the density of heat production. In addition some literally use jet engines to power them instead of grid power. Some new DCs use loopholes like adding wheels to their power production so that way they can skirt around laws saying it’s only temporary power production.
In the past a rack (42u standard) would hold things like hard drives, tape libraries, network stuff, and servers. Now they cram in GPUs by the dozens, run them at max via liquid cooling. Traditional DC cooling used air cooled hot and cold isles, raised floors with air conditioning pump and large scale chiller units.
Hyper scales are whole different animals. They are ment for processing. Depending on their loop system they need water connected right to GPU/CPUs, heat distribution, fresh water. All relatively new due to water’s thermal mass.
Traditional DCs were air cooled. For perspective a fortune 500’s DC may have been 3k sq ft. A Colo (multiple companies sharing one building for infrastructure) may be 15000-50000sq ft. These new data centers are now campuses. Like they are 8 data center buildings on one site because it’s more practical to drive at some point.
TL;DR a Data Center =/= hyperscale data center.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jan/15/elon-musk-xai-datacenter-memphis
- Voytrekk@sopuli.xyzEnglish2 days
So they build them cheaply and doing everything in their power to avoid regulations. We really need the government to come in and shut these down given all the harm they cause to their local environment.
A government worried about the environment… That usually only happens in times of mass outrage, chances of which might decrease over time by modern
propagandacommunication strategies.- stringere@sh.itjust.worksEnglish2 days
We really need the government to come in and shut these down given all the harm they cause to their local environment
But the government is helping pave the way for it.
- Voytrekk@sopuli.xyzEnglish2 days
It was a theoretical thing. Government is supposed to work for the people, not just corporations. Obviously the government in the US is not doing a good job at that.
- Bytemeister@lemmy.worldEnglish2 days
Yeah. People don’t understand why I’m not anti-datacenter (let me finish before you dog-pile me). Datacenters are very efficient ways to house lots of compute. Power, HVAC, and staffing all benefit from economies of scale. Most of our modern life is highly depent on datacenters, including application specific AI tools (not LLMs, but like medical imaging analysis tools) that will have positive effects on humanity. I do have problems with datacenters that are going up quickly and cheaply, with lax standards for air, water, sound and light pollution, and power subsidized by the surrounding homes, in order to ride the front of this very unstable AI bubble.
Before you ask, I did sign the petition to limit datacenters in my state. I’d sign one to limit new datacenter construction nation-wide. Datacenters are essential to modern life, which is exactly why we should have a higher standard for how they are constructed. I’m not anti-data center, but I am anti-whatever-the-fuck-this-is.
- radamant@lemmy.worldEnglish1 day
While I’m not a fan of Big tech, but this surely is nonsense. Are they saying there are more vibrations than, say, living in New York? Near those train lines and billions of cars (and there are probably data centers there too).
You better watch this video by Benn Jordan about exactly this issue: https://youtu.be/_bP80DEAbuo
He measured the reported issue.
Here is a timestamp witg the datacenrer noise isolated: https://youtu.be/_bP80DEAbuo?t=540
- ingeanus@ttrpg.networkEnglish1 day
I’d be really hesitant with Benn’s videos here. I think Andy Masley has a pretty solid piece describing how they are likely incorrect and possibly even deceptive. There’s enough reasons to hate data center expansions and AI that I don’t think it’s particularly helpful to promote ideas like infrasound majorly affecting our health, as I’d think it dilutes some otherwise important arguments with things that are factually dubious.
https://blog.andymasley.com/p/contra-benn-jordan-data-center-and
- neaptide@lemmy.worldEnglish16 hours
I have to agree, sadly. I’m a huge fan of Benn Jordan’s work but I read the Masley post last time this topic came up and even looked at the original sources that Benn cites. There really isn’t any credible research out there to show that infrasound has negative health effects. Fuck data centers in general, but yeah, this argument lacks high quality data to support it.
No offense but that blog is a massive wall of text that is equal to asking someone to read a whole scientific paper (which is too much to ask for in the current context of discussion).
I came as far as dissecting the video about the DCs. It’s not much, maybe 1/10 of the total length.It seems okayish written but I can’t add much else opinion to it as I havent read much further :/ I am sorry.
- ingeanus@ttrpg.networkEnglish7 hours
It is definitely quite the piece, it took me a couple days to get through myself, but I would definitely not say such efforts are too much for the discussion. Disproving misinformation/misconceptions almost always require a lot more effort than sharing them does, and the topic of infrasound harming humans is one that’s really only provable through scientific studies.
That being said as a tl;dr for his post:
Masley is a former physics teacher who works with Effective Altruism. He begins with talking about the body of literature on infrasound, noting how the current consensus indicates it’s only harmful when it’s either normally audible (i.e. normal noise pollution) or loud enough to physically interact with you (similar to how you can feel a jet engine when it takes off). He also talks about how the idea that non-audible infrasound being harmful is basically a pseudoscientific idea that was created to make people afraid of wind turbines, which has generally been considered disproven.
He also goes over each of Benn’s claims from his three videos and discusses how basically all of his points fail into one of
- They showcase how there is a real harmful effect, but it’s caused by either mundane noise pollution, infrasound that’s entirely audible (therefore just normal noise pollution), or infrasound loud enough you can physically feel it. It’s also probably noteworthy to note that data centers generally don’t show up in these categories, instead being in the non-audible infrasound.
- Benn showcases a study or other source that claims either the exact opposite or inconclusive evidence for the point he’s using it for.
- Benn showcases a study or other source that has repeatedly failed to replicate or stand up to peer review.
- The participants reporting effects more likely due to the nocebo effect.
He also gets in touch with authors from the studies that Benn cites, and the ones that get back to him seem to agree with the bogus framing.
Masley also notes often how deceptive the framing and designs that Benn uses are, such as:
- Using the UV Spectrum of light and its ability to cause cancer to imply that other invisible things, such as infrasound, are harmful.
- Creating a study that basically fails on every metric to be a genuinely rigorous study while portraying it as meaningful.
- Benn claims the body of literature on infrasound is sparse often, when there seems to be a lot of works showing the contrary.
- Benn tries to give credence to some extremely dubious experiments like the Vic Tandy ghost story, that are really bad science.
Masley also notes how Benn seems to make a number of mistakes that he should have expertise in as an audio engineer, so he generally comes to the conclusion that this is intentional deception on Benn’s part.
His big point in the end is that, treating infrasound like a really big problem draws attention away from worse problems like air and water pollution; it also muddies the message with factually unsound claims that can make other more meaningful concerns about data centers, pollution, or similar problems more easily dismissable by critics.
It is definitely worth a read as I’m likely forgetting and skipping a lot here, and Masley was pretty specific about a lot (which does get him into pedantic arguments with Benn later).
Your summary was exactly what I needed to at least form a basic opinion (very basic) and (up the point at which I stopped the article) came to the same conclusion as your summary.
Edut: Thank you for taking the time for the TLDR (doesnt matter to me if AI or not)
What makes you assume this is bogus, when it’s been shown repeatedly that it can negatively affect people. Just because you’re not sensitive to it, doesn’t mean no one else is.
Lol. Just linked the same video! :D
https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/comment/26736540- Auth@lemmy.worldEnglish2 days
Yeah none of that expertise is relevant here. I like Ben but this video has no substance.
- GenitalHurricane@lemmy.worldEnglish1 day
Lol what. Besides the actual scientific tests and result analysis? No substance?
so same thing as for wind turbines then
Edit: as in, they should not be built where people live because you can feel the vibrations and it has a measurable effect on your vascular health. i linked a paper.
Wind turbines don’t make infrasound like datacenters. While they do make some infrasound, it’s less loud than datacenters, and most impostantly, doesn’t get transmitted really far (air is pretty inefficient at transmitting infrasound).
However, datacenters are louder, and have better mechanical connection with the ground. The ground is very good at transmitting infrasound, and it can even vibrate an entire building if the structure resonates. This effect is not new, and we’ve also seen it with other industrial buildings with heavy machinery. Furthermore, due to regulations, you can’t build as close to a wind farm as you can to a datacenter.
I noticed this effect when city buses were idling about a block away from my old house. It would hit just right (just wrong?) on a really noticable resonance frequency for that place. It used to make it hard to fall asleep if I went to bed after midnight.
I don’t notice weird vibrations like that much at my current address, fortunately.
that’s why i mean it’s the same thing. don’t build them near people. we know ground-transferred infrasound is bad for your health.
as for louder, idk. i worked next to a facebook dc for years, it was eerily quiet.
- Serinus@lemmy.worldEnglish2 days
Old data centers and these new things are about as similar as a single family home and a cruise ship.
See SUMO’s comment above.
interestingly the one i was next to was one of the first to use the evaporative cooling tech most of them use now. it was developed partly at my university.
I’d say the traditional long-term type of DCs arent as badly built as those built atm that looks like they can be deconstructed in a single week.
- KingKong33@lemmy.mlEnglish2 days
There’s tons of evidence for data centers, but I’ve never heard the same for wind turbines. Do you have a source?
- Zarxrax@lemmy.worldEnglish2 days
Can confirm I have seen tons of articles over the years of residents complaining about low frequency hum from wind turbines. Just Google it. In comments sections, it generally gets written off as bullshit or the residents just hating clean energy. Now the same scenario comes up for data centers and people want to accept it as a legitimate problem.
I dunno, but maybe being exposed to a constant non-stop noise that never turns off might not be good for humans, no matter what the source is.
i’ve heard it a lot but never put much stock in it until there was actual research: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-97107-8
- arockinyourshoe@lemmy.worldEnglish2 days
I would love to see your explanation for why wind turbines have as much a negative impact on people’s health as hyperscale data centers.
apparently low-frequency noise causes heart rate variations. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-97107-8
the conclusion is the same for both things too: don’t build them where people live.
- lucullus@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish2 days
From the first scimming, I would not give much credit to that study. Only 29 participants. But most importantly it was not double blind. The participants where instructed on what exactly the study wanted to find out and could easily see, how far they where from the wind turbine at the testing sides. Thats a programmed placebo effect.
Also: They only measured at 2 sites. The outdoor site was only 20m from the wind turbine. That is a distance not even relevant to placement of wind turbines. The safety distance to the spinning blades will already be significantly higher, at least 100m. So the measurement at that side might be interesting, but irrelevant.
yeah it’s not very good. but it’s one study of many and it was more to show that people are actually having issues with them.
- lucullus@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish22 hours
Thats not what it is effectively saying though. It says, that if you suggest, that infrasound from wind turbines is a medical problem, then people will have medical problems. That is the nocebo effect for you, not infrasound.
Also: There are many other sources of infrasound in our lifes. For example using a car. Wind turbines at typical distances are about 75db while driving in a car is more like 100db. If you open one of the rear windows while driving 130db. Where are the adverse effects of these?
You might want to look at these https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/handle/10024/162329 https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2014.00220/full#h11
most people aren’t driving 24 hours a day though.
also, that finnish experiment had only 26 self-selected participants so the same argument applies.
not that this lends any credence to the “wind turbines are harmful”-side, either; that was never what i was driving at. i pointed out that the article makes the same claims about dc’s as the paper i linked did about wind turbines.
someone else pointed out that even though the claims about their effects lack merit, *we still build them away from people". which is what i think we should do to dc’s as well, for the same reasons.
- lucullus@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish18 hours
Ok, then I misunderstood your arguments. I understood “Away from people” an argument for increasing the distance to wind turbines. They are already normally build 500 to 1500m away from people. I also saw it in my local context. In germany we had the conservatives argue for increasing the mandated distances further, triggered by the far rights hate for renewables, which would make it impossible to build them in large parts of the country.
When we talk about wind turbines vs datacenters, I think a big argument is the actual direct value for the community. Providing clean energy gives more and direct value to a community, while the AI datacenter are mainly bringing the benefit of slop. Both are done in the capitalism way, but Datacenters (especially AI DCs) are way farther away from the consumer.
- lucullus@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish2 days
For those speaking german, I’m linking to a podcast episode of the Quarks Science Cops (Public Broadcast) about this topic. Link to Youtube
Spoiler: We already have way louder infrasound producers near us. Wind turbines are already build in quite a distance to be safe from flying debris in case of a catastrophic mechanical breakdown of the spinning blades.
