Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by e40 21 days ago
Watch these

https://youtu.be/_bP80DEAbuo?si=4XpIb0vb8YjY1g_k

https://youtu.be/t-8TDOFqkQA?si=EB8zAF0JYHvOB23a

https://youtu.be/3VJT2JeDCyw?si=ak7haiWzbX9O8BL9

Then, tell me if you want to live anywhere near those.

Then, tell me of a nuclear power plant that has that bad a repo.

1 comments

Have you read the responses to (at least) the first of these videos? https://blog.andymasley.com/p/contra-benn-jordan-data-center...

Also, I thought the response by Benn Jordan on Bluesky was informative. https://blog.andymasley.com/p/contra-benn-jordan-data-center...

I read the first link and it said:

> When low-frequency sound becomes strong enough to be heard or otherwise felt, it can cause annoyance, discomfort, and sleep disruption like any other normal noise pollution.

So which is it? Sure, I don’t really believe that there is magical super special harmful noise from a datacenter, but are these monster datacenters emitting disruptive amounts of low frequency sound or are they not?

It would be helpful if you didn't post rebuttals from people with a massive financial incentive to do so.
Ad homniems aside, is the accusation even accurate? So far as I can tell he doesn't obviously have "a massive financial incentive to do so", like he's a VC investor in anthropic or whatever. He does seem to be bullish on AI in general, but I'm not sure why that'd be a disqualification for someone on the pro-ai camp any more than someone who's interested in retaining their property values or whatever would be a disqualifier for the anti-ai camp.
That's not an ad hominem, though?

Ad hominem would be if shimman had said something like "don't post rebuttals from people who are stupid meanyheads". Identifying a characteristic of the posters that affects their incentives is a perfectly legitimate reason to discredit their posts, or at least call their impartiality into question.

From wikipedia:

>Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem ('an argument to the person'), refers to when a speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than the substance of the argument itself.

>motive

Emphasis mine.

No it wouldn't. I want to hear his argument.