The state exports almost three-fifths of the electricity it produces, according to the EIA. this means to use internal "surplus" electricity in the state, 750mw data center would be supported. The initial build is 1.8gw. Need to increase electricity production in the state by over 150%. Surrounding states that depend on Wyoming imports get screwed if WY production not increased more.

One part of this is jurisdiction. I'm being very simplistic here and only have a vague sense of the picture, really (my own prejudice - I find just about everything about meta abhorrent) They are based in a country that's solely oritentated towards liberty - not fairness or common sense. There are other parts, of course, like lobbying, tax breaks and so on, but a big part is because they're not based in the EU.

One of the greatest videos ever.

CBDCs could well take the prize for most dangerous thing in our lifetime, similar to nuclear weapons during the Cold War. I'm thinking of that line from the song in Les Mis. Look down, look down. You'll always be a slave. Look down, look down. You're standing in your grave.

You don’t understand. The tracking and spying is the entire point of the maneuver. The ‘children are accessing porn’ thing is just a Trojan horse to justify the spying. I understand what are you saying, I simply don't consider to check if a law is applied as a Trojan horse in itself. I would agree if the EU had said to these sites "give us all the the access log, a list of your subscriber, every data you gather and a list of every IP it ever connected to your site", and even this way does not imply that with only the IP you could know who the user is without even asking the telecom company for help. So, is it a Trojan horse ? Maybe, it heavily depend on how the EU want to do it. If they just ask "show me how you try to avoid that a minor access your material", which normally is the fist step, I don't see how it could be a Trojan horse. It could become, I agree on that. As you pointed out, it’s already illegal for them to access it, and parents are legally required to prevent their children from accessing it. No, parents are not legally required to prevent it. The seller (or provider) is legally required. It is a subtle but important difference. But you don’t lock down the entire population, or institute pre-crime surveillance policies, just because some parents are not going to follow the law. True. You simply impose laws that make mandatories for the provider to check if he can sell/serve something to someone. I mean asking that the cashier of mall check if I am an adult when I buy a bottle of wine is no different than asking to Pornhub to check if the viewer is an adult. I agree that in one case is really simple and in the other is really hard (and it is becoming harder by the day). You then charge the guilty parents after the offense. Ok, it would work, but then how do you caught the offendind parents if not checking what everyone do ? Is it not simpler to try to prevent it instead ?

Move fast and break people

::: spoiler spoiler sadfsafsafsdfsd :::