When Carl Sagan said, "The cosmos is within us. We are made of star-stuff. We are a way for the universe to know itself" he was poetically accurate. The comets are seeded with the remains of untold countless exploded stars.
"One of the tough pills I and probably many other developers have had to swallow when maturing is that "non-programming skills" from schools are useful and very valuable, actually."
It is interesting in how challenging it can be to convince some younger developers of this. Some of the stronger and more technically proficient developers (that are young-ish... mid 30's and down, let's say) have a level of contempt for those skills that is surprising and not trivial to coach them on. They seem to suffer from "smartest person in the room" syndrome and mistakenly believe those smarts apply to everything they deal with rather than the just the technical areas that they excel in.
The aspect of small local stores functioning as a social hub really hits hard. The social hub, such as it is now, can be so much larger and less personal that it really does feel like a loss (a negative even).
Is the social hub now something like Instagram or a specific forum/subreddit/space for a school or neighborhood? These are really insufficient replacements and people that grew up knowing nothing else likely do not realize just how insufficient they are.
But why do social hubs need to be places of financial transactions?
I was in Delft recently and I really loved their library/community center. Full of music practice rooms, people playing board games on the ground floor, a coffee bar and it was full of people at 8pm. It is open from 9am - 11pm M-F.
You walk or cycle there (free indoor bicycle parking). There is a movie theater across the "street" (no cars).
They didn't need to be transactional spaces, they need to be spaces that attract people regularly.
The local chicken farmer who works 16 hours a day to keep his farm running isn't going out of his way three times a week to visit the community center for board game night.
He's definitely in the local Tractor Supply store three times a week though...
It's about creating community where people naturally gather, not creating a gathering space then hoping people show up.
DAVID BRANCACCIO: There's a little sweet moment, I've got to say, in a very intense book — your latest — in which you're heading out the door and your wife says what are you doing? I think you say — I'm getting — I'm going to buy an envelope.
KURT VONNEGUT: Yeah.
DAVID BRANCACCIO: What happens then?
KURT VONNEGUT: Oh, she says well, you're not a poor man. You know, why don't you go online and buy a hundred envelopes and put them in the closet? And so I pretend not to hear her. And go out to get an envelope because I'm going to have a hell of a good time in the process of buying one envelope.
I meet a lot of people. And, see some great looking babes. And a fire engine goes by. And I give them the thumbs up. And, and ask a woman what kind of dog that is. And, and I don't know…
And, of course, the computers will do us out of that. And, what the computer people don't realize, or they don't care, is we're dancing animals. You know, we love to move around. And, we're not supposed to dance at all anymore.
It is the computer people. The 'owning' people were computer people that founded these companies. Its computer people that sit in these meetings and go through designing these changes and building these systems. I'm a privacy person and yesterday my boss asked me to pull up records on a users device to see a record of what they were doing and I did it even though its disgusting micromanagement that I hate.
I don’t think it’s about being “places of financial transactions” so much as it’s about places of shared necessity. Everyone has to eat, so everyone goes to the grocery store.
Community centers are great and I’m not going to argue against having “non-commercial recreation”, but the thing about having local stores as social hubs is they might be the only universally shared place of a community. Not everyone is going to want (or be able!) to visit a library, but everyone does need food and other consumables/goods.
The "shared necessity" factor also means that you regularly meet acquaintances there by accident. It just doesn't happen at the Wal-Mart or Home-Depot 15 miles away anywhere near as often as it would happen at the town general store or the local main street shopping district. Possibly because nobody actually spends time at a big box store or strip mall; they're such deeply unpleasant spaces that you basically just do what absolutely must be done and get out. So now a little extra stroll around to window shop has been replaced by extra time in the car to drive 15 miles across town in the other direction to go to some other big box store.
It's not just a small towns thing, either. The main street shopping district I had in mind just now is in the middle of Chicago. And it doesn't happen so much there, either, anymore, in the post retail apocalypse era. Now it's all bars and restaurants so people go there for a very reduced range of reasons.
I would say that "don't let perfect be the enemy of the good" here. Would universal be better? Sure. But what I saw is so much better than what we currently have here in the US.
The point is that OPEN (the name of the Delft library) is really a community center and not a library. Yes, it happens to have books. But it also has a stage for musical performances, art rooms, tables, wifi, washrooms, coffee. I would say that the only thing that is missing is a gym; there are small dance rooms in there but that's not quite the same.
But the essence here is walkable communities. Suburbs and exurbs are hostile to even small local stores because you have to drive everywhere to do anything. There is no community in visiting my Costco or even my QFC.
We decentralized information, and in doing so we centralized culture. I fear that we are only now coming to understand what we have wrought. I am sure that new social structures will arise to replace the old, but who is to say what lies between? It is not out of the question that even a project with noble intentions such as the web may precipitate a dark age for humanity. I don't say this as a pessimist, but as a wide-eyed realist wondering what happens when human civilization no longer requires humanity.
I attend a church where most of the folks are older and they don’t seem to get it that younger people won’t just find our church like in the old days because people aren’t connected by local businesses like they used to be. I don’t mind saying on here that I attend St John’s. It doesn’t matter because there’s over 1000 other St John’s in the country. No one can find us using modern means.
But if it’s so valuable… why aren’t people willing to pay for it?
Forgoing luxuries like a vacation to support local stores full of people you know and trust, that might charge 20% more for the same product, seems like an obvious thing…
Huge sections of America/American's are incredibly poor.
Add that the highest income people were the first to switch to Amazon, and are more online first than community first. It didn't take losing too many of those customers for the economics to fall apart.
I live in a tourist town that has had a huge influx of new, higher wealth people post COVID. Surprising to me our businesses/restaurants are doing worse with this new population with more money, not better. They live here for the amenities, but other than on the mountain biking trails/ski mountain/lake (on their boats or remote beaches, detached from most people) you never see them. They work from home, but our walking trails are the sparsest I've ever seen them. None of them seem to go out to eat, especially not lunch. It's awful. And now that they are here, property prices have gone up, so more locals (and the children of locals definitely) will be priced out and replaced by work from home types who... just disappear into their houses. They buy all their gear online instead of supporting the local shops, the local knowledge, the places help organize/arrange for trail maintenance, more land into conservancy. From my one town observation modern upper middle class American's appear to be a net-loss for the local community. They are the types so into their sport they do all the own maintenance, then expect the local shop to do the 1 or 2 things they can't/don't want to do. The local shop can't survive on that little bit of work on your 'all internet bought, self maintained' stuff. They just don't get it.
Lots of things have happened that have ultimately harmed these small communities.
A major problem is consolidation. A small town hardware store may have had access to multiple suppliers at one point. Those all merged together and ultimately started raising their prices in a "go away" sense to small time purchasers. That's made it incredibly hard to be a store. A big box store gets a lot more foot traffic and has more leverage against distributers which allows them to ultimately outprice a small time store.
My hometown went through this. As a kid, it had a restaurant, a grocery store, a hardware store, and an automobile repair shop. 1 by 1 those all died. The restaurant died because the community never ate there. It became a thing where you'd literally call the owner the night before so they could prepare you a meal the next day. Otherwise they had no traffic. They were too expensive for my small town so nobody would buy a lunch there. The grocery store and hardware store died from being priced out. At one point, just to keep the shelves stocked the owner literally had to buy products from Walmart to sell at the store. No distributor would sell to them.
I think to tease out the core of the problem with large businesses, capital, and society (esp. as regards the dissolution of small businesses), you need to autopsy the concepts of value and liquidity.
Money is meant to be a store of value, 'value' in this case being literally anyone considers valuable. However, it's an abstraction that doesn't quite fit over the thing it attempts to abstract - it really only captures that value if the value is something that is easy to transact. You might value a good conversation with your local grocer, or the smile you get when you pass someone you recognize in your neighborhood, but those things are left out of the money equation. Things the abstraction captures well - transactions of goods, legal representation, contracts, and lobbyists - are all of a particular stripe. Many of these are related to a projection of will; the ability to make things happen the way you want in spite of potentially mitigating factors.
One of the things that money allows is exploitation. Because of the delta between actual value and the abstraction of value, one is capable of strategically manouvering such that they capture more of the abstraction than a straight value:value transaction would warrant. This is compounded when you get tricky with laws and litigation and contracts - hard edges in the problem space become anvils you can use to hammer things to a shape that you like. Cynical strategies are quite successful here.
It is my belief that due to the recursively self-reinforcing nature of this system, it is bound to fail eventually. Because the leaks in the abstraction of value are actually a boon to some few powerful entities, the rules that govern the abstraction will fail to change and adapt and at some point the whole system becomes too heavy to support itself. As a whole, the system will eventually eat it's way to a heart attack.
Liquidity is the velocity of this process, and thus the velocity of consumption. There are pressures and systems and factors that metabolize the effects of the flow of capital, but the higher liquidity is the more burdened those systems become. We are currently in a place where the liquidity factor is > 1, by which I mean money can be spent before it is earned and most of it is (we have something like 5-20x debt to the pool of money, depending on how you measure it). This means that those deficiencies in the abstraction are accelerated and compounded by the same amount, which translates to an equal difference between the things we actually value as humans and the things we are capable of valuing as economic units.
They dont get a choice. You really can’t operate a small store anymore. The distribution networks were all destroyed by the top-5 retailers.
Regional supermarkets are capped by this. The lack of third party distribution means they have to have their own sourcing and distribution. They can’t grow and are slowly being picked off of PE and bigger chains.
It’s even hard for restaurants. When I worked in restaurants in college in my region, we had 6 local produce distributors. Now you have Sysco, US Foods, two regionals, one of which just went PE, and the vertically integrated Chinese markets that prefer to do business within their circle.
I think we are going to have significant political unrest, and the rollup of everything will continue until that federal power is exerted against it. Otherwise, welcome to WalmartKrogerHomeDepot.
After 50 years of such choices being made it’s not suprising that it’s exponentially harder. The real question is why did Americans decide to do so en masse so many years ago.
Because if I do that, I lose my vacation and I don’t gain a local store full of people I know and trust.
Collective action problems aren’t solved by individually performing the action, and therefore the fact that people aren’t doing it doesn’t show they don’t want it.
> Collective action problems aren’t solved by individually performing the action
This is a truth that a lot of the west, particularly Americans, struggle to accept. We keep trying "the free market and individual incentives must solve all problems" over and over, and fail over and over.
Huge problems require collective action to solve. Collective action requires good coordination, strong institutions, leadership, and most importantly, the societal willingness to not always optimize for the individual's freedom/desires/expectations. None of these are currently present in America.
It's a very attractive idea. It gives you an immediate counterargument (people must prefer it this way because they're all doing it), and gives you the satisfaction of calling the other person a hypocrite (you think it's better yet you aren't doing it).
I've lost count of how many times I've had someone tell me, "If you think you should pay more taxes, you can always send the IRS some extra cash."
Any problem with externalized costs or benefits is a collective action problem. You get a benefit everyone pays for or you incur a cost which everyone pays. The individual incentive is to freeload on the resources of others. It is functionally theft.
Regulation and other government actions can solve these problems by internalizing these costs/benefits. Any solution to these problems involves collective control of individual actions, which is to say, government at some scale.
There is some irony in the people who say "taxation is theft" ignoring the theft of the commons counteracted by taxation and the government services it supports.
You think you have a choice to buy local. It's more complicated than that.
"Local stores full of people you know and trust" is what advertising tries to approximate. Instead of forming lasting human bonds with shopkeepers and employees, we are informed by ads who we should patronize. And we pay, indirectly, for that service.
Private equity also takes its pound of flesh. Try hiring a local plumber. They'll always say they're locally owned and operated, which is a partial truth. But when you're charged $400 for 15 minutes of labor, remember that a lot of that revenue goes to private equity, far far away from your hamlet, whether you like it or not.
the McDonald's in our town says "locally owned and operated", same with the stores where everything (literally) is made in China. These sums up the absurdity of the phrase for me.
It's true that it's locally O&O as someone else pointed out. The McDonald's corporation just likely owns the land and collects rent and a sales royalty from the owner. This is pretty standard and honestly, seems to me to be much more human than the big box retail business model where there is no local ownership of any kind.
Side note: Grocery Outlet if you're in the places they operate, is a completely franchised grocery store chain. In my experience in multiple towns, the local owners do a great job, and one near me donates to some excellent local charities.
The franchise is either locally owned and operated, or it's a corporation-owned store. McDonald's doesn't permit owner-investors as franchisees, only owner-operators (at least that was the case last I knew).
1) the American cult of self-reliance. The idea that people will not value something they did not themselves work for, even if its given to them by a close friend or family member, is basically synonymous with "the American dream". "Socialism" is so bad to Americans that they would rather have diabetics die because they can't afford the lifesaving medicine they need, than to give handouts to such people, just for them to develop a "dependency". There's even an entire health-influencer industry built around the idea that all health problems not directly caused by trauma are because the person suffering just isn't trying hard enough to be healthy, and not, you know, because of a social and economic system that's actively corrosive to human health. "You're sick because you're too lazy to avoid trans-fats" basically the gist of RFK Jr's ideology.
2) Americans are so opposed to thinking more than 3 months ahead that all they see with that 20% price increase is the impact it has on them right now. The easy access to instant gratification is steadily eroding our ability to be patient or suffer any hardship. This has been growing for a long time (c.f. fresh fruits and vegetables of all stripes, year round) but has reached a sort of fever pitch with the advent of same-day delivery for a vast array of bits and baubles.
Those hubs still exist for things that the internet cannot replace. Barber shops, coffee shops, cafes, and other local dining, pubs and bars. Local parks, especially if you have kids, and other kid-centric events such as sports, scouts, and other activities. Adult rec leagues, gyms, volunteer orgs, etc. But certainly many have gone. There are still bookstores and specialty retailers here and there but not like we used to have.
all of my incidents of losing consciousness were absolute voids to me. Once I apparently hit the back of a car on my bike and I just kind of woke up with no idea what had happened (I say "apparently" because I don't really know... I was riding my bike and suddenly I was laying on the side of the road, no in between. The other time my father punched me in the face, knocking the back of my head into the corner of a metal oven hood. I remember that but then the next thing was coming to on the ground with him over me, hands around my neck squeezing. Nothing whatsoever in between the start and end of events.
When we observe a fourth interstellar object, I'll gladly read Avi Loeb's wildest speculations alongside more measured perspectives. This is the third time we're observing an interstellar object?
I used Helix for a couple of days and really liked it for the most part. However, I would sometimes encounter a small, simple thing that I do without thinking in VS Code but just did not know the command for in Helix. I would look it up, think, "Sweet, that's efficient" and move on. This kept happening and finally I was in a situation where I just needed to move fast and did not have time to investigate how to do it in Helix so I switched back and... never returned.
It was a learning curve issue for me, not a functionality issue. I'll probably return at some point (like when the EOY season becomes slower and I have more time to explore) but for now I'm back to cruising in VS Code.
Anyone that says, "they don’t have to manage infrastructure" I would invite them to deal with a multi-environment terraform setup and tell me again that about what they don't have to manage.
While terraform is not ideal it is much much more easy to deal with managed services in AWS than to deal with on premises baremetal servers.
Most are biased because they like dealing with the kind of issues in on premises.
They like dealing with the performance regressions, heat maps, kernel issues etc. Because why not? You are a developer and you need some way to exercise your skills. AWS takes that away and makes you focus on the product. Issues arising from AWS only requires you talking to support. Most developers get into this industry for the love of solving these problems and not actually solving product requirements.
AWS takes away what devs like and brings in more "actual" work.
> AWS takes that away and makes you focus on the product. Issues arising from AWS only requires you talking to support.
Not my experience at all. e.g. NLBs don't support ICMP which has broken some clients of the application I work on. When we tried to turn on preserve-client-ip so we could get past the ephemeral port limit, it started causing issues with MSS negotiation, breaking some small fraction of clients. This stuff is insanely hard to debug because you can't get onto the loadbalancer to do packet captures (nor can AWS support). Loadbalancing for long-lived connections works poorly.
Lambda runs into performance issues immediately for a web application server because it's just an entirely broken architecture for that use-case (it's basically the exact opposite of user-mode threads to scale: let's use an entire VM per request!). For some reason they encourage people to do it anyway. Lord help you if you have someone with some political capital in your org that wants to push for that.
RDS also runs into performance issues the moment you actually have some traffic. A baremetal server is orders of magnitude more capable.
ipv6 support is still randomly full of gaps (or has only very recently been fixed, except you might have to do things like recreate your production EKS cluster, oops) which leads to random problems that you have to architect around. Taken with NAT gateway being absurdly expensive, you end up having to invert sensible architectures or go through extra proxy layers that just complicate things.
AWS takes basic skills around how to build/maintain backend systems and makes half of your knowledge useless/impossible to apply, instead upgrading all of your simple tuning tasks into architectural design problems. The summary of my last few years has basically been working around problems that almost entirely originate from trying to move software into EKS and dealing with random constraints that would take minutes to fix baremetal.
I agree that building your backend on Lambda is terrible for many reasons: slow starts, request / response size restrictions, limitations in "layer" sizes, etc.
RDS, however, I have found to be rock solid. What have you run into?
The parent compares RDS to baremetal, which I think isn't a fair comparison at all. Especially since we don't know the specs of either of these.
I found RDS to be rock solid too, although performance issues are often resolved by developers by submitting a PR that bumps the instance size x2, because "why not". On baremetal it's often impossible to upgrade CPU just like that, so people have to fix performance issues elsewhere, which leads to better outcome at the end.
RDS works great, but it's far easier to scale a bare metal setup to an extent that makes RDS look like an expensive toy because you have far more hardware options
RDS is a good option if you want convenience and simplicity, though.
Managing database backups myself is something that gives me nightmares. I would refuse to use bare-metal dbs unless I have a dedicated team just to manage the database (or data that is okay to lose, like caching layers).
Managing database backups is fairly straightforward. Postgres + a base backup + long term wal archiving in a blob store is very easy to set up and monitor. It could be easier, and if you don't want to manage that using RDS is certainly a valid choice, but it's a tradeoff - I often have customers that help addressing performance issues with RDS they simply wouldn't have if they sized a bare metal setup with enough RAM and NVMe and configured it even halfway decently instead, and the end result is often that they end up paying more for devops help to figure out performance bottlenecks than they'd spend putting the same devops consultant on retainer ensuring they have a solid backup setup.
I dunno, it does sound like significant work and way outside my (and most devs) area of expertise. I can definitely supervise a managed RDBMS (like RDS) by myself without help on the side even though I am no dba.
A mismanaged VPS is downtime and churn, a mismanaged DB will insta-kill your business if you have unrecoverable data loss. I would definitely use a managed solution until I can get a dedicated person to babysit the DB, but I would consider managing a VPS myself.
There's no need for a dedicated person. A single operator can easily manage dozens of DB instances unless your needs are extremely complex. Managing these kinds of things are serviced trivially available on retainer.
I don't know too much about the performance side of RDS, but the backup model is absolutely a headache. It's at the point where I'd rather pg_dump into gz and upload to s3.
> performance regressions, heat maps, kernel issues etc.
> AWS takes that away and makes you focus on the product.
ha ha ha no. Have been dealing with kernel issues on my AWS machines for a long time. They lock up under certain kinds of high load. AWS support is useless. Experimenting with kernel version leads to performance regressions.
AWS is great if your IT/purchasing department is inefficient. Getting a new AWS machine is instant, compared to getting purchasing to approve new machine and IT allocating it to you. But all the low-level stuff is still there.
"Sure, we can get some on-prem machines. They'll pay for themselves in 6 months. I just need permissions from Finance to spend some CAPEX, and get IT and Facilities to cooperate"
"Ugh, actually please keep using AWS. But try and spend less.. if you can and this does not compromise deadlines"
We have both AWS and colocated servers. The server workload mostly scales with the machine count not the user count. And you can get a lot done with very few servers these days.
That was barely true a decade ago. It's total nonsense today when it's trivial to ensure all your servers have IPMI or similar and it cann all be automated apart from the couple-of-times a year component swap outs.
But it's also the wrong comparison: there's rarely a reason to go on premises, and need to take responsibility for the hardware yourself - renting bare metal servers is usually the sweet spot and means someone else does the annoying bits for you but you still have the simplicity and lower cost.
As someone contracted to manage systems for people, I consistently make more money from people who overengineer their cloud setups than from people with bare metal servers. It tends to require far more maintenance to keep an AWS setup same, secure, and not bankrupting you.
Uh, no I don't in fact like dealing with any of that. And I've never had to in 20 years of managing some mid scale service on bare metal. (Though of course there have been issues of various sorts.)
I think you may have it backwards: people like tinkering with complex cloud stuff, even if they don't need it.
I've certainly done some things where outsourcing hosting meant I didn't have to manage infrastructure. For services running on vm instances in gcp vs services running on bare metal managed hosts, there's not a whole lot of difference in terms of management IMHO.
But any infrastructure that the product I support use is infrastructure I need to manage; having it outside my control just makes it that much harder to manage. If it's outside my control, the people who control it better do a much better job than I would at managing it, otherwise it's going to be a much bigger pain.
I think that this concern is valid but there are deeper more foundational issues facing the US that have led to the sum of the issues mentioned in the post.
We can say that if this rotten support beam fails the US is in trouble but the real issue is what caused the rot in the first place.
The effective removal of regulations via winner bribes and a lack of enforcement plus the explicit removal of regulations, to reduce corruption and insider trading. AI is not required to create the systemic exploitations and they are far more efficient at extracting value than any AI system.
I think a better metaphor for interconnected economies is that of chains always breaking at their weakest link.
Sure, well done, your link in the chain didn't break… but your anchor is still stuck on the bottom of the ocean and you're on your spare anchor (with a shorter chain) until you get back to harbour.
Most companies don't really need the majority of React's power. There is room for a low to mid level complexity library/framework to fill the space that the majority of sites really need (like, that brochureware site should be statically generated and needs none of what React offers and the site that deals with dozens of requests per minute can be greatly simplified). What we need is a low complexity tool that has a fantastic DX. Of the many projects that deal with this none has taken hold in the way that React has.
One is the DX as you mentioned; eg Hugo is nice, but editor integration for autocomplete, warnings, etc is basically non-existent that I’ve seen. Templating is also really clunky relative to React.
The second is Reacts omnipresence means there’s usually pre-built stuff I can pull in if I just want to iterate fast.
The third is that typically the best way to get a low complexity and good DX static site generator is just to roll your own with only the features you need. They get a lot simpler when you aren’t dealing with an ever-expanding list of feature requests and usecases. You decide whether you want types or editor integrations or whatever by duct taping together a few libraries.
One thing it's doing is jacking up electricity rates for US States that are part of the [PJM Interconnection grid](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PJM_Interconnection). It's a capacity auction price that is used to guarantee standby availability and it is [up significantly](https://www.toledochamber.com/blog/watts-up-why-ohios-electr...) at $270.43 per MW/day, which is far above prior years (~$29–58/MW/day) and this is translating to significantly higher consumer prices.
Yeah. We have been turning off old plants and not bringing on-line new ones the entire time I've been alive now. At best we've perpetually been renewing licenses to grant operation of old plants well beyond their original design lifetimes. Anything new is fought tooth and nail by practically every local community. Even solar and wind brings out the NIMBYs in force.
Every recent "datacenters are evil" news segment/article these days has a section quoting a few local NIMBYs talking about how they are opposing more transmission lines in their area for various reasons. Then these same folks (usually literally the same person) is quoted as saying that they are "for" investing into the grid and understands America needs more capacity - just not here.
It's pretty frustrating to watch. There are actually large problems with the way many local communities are approving datacenter deals - but people cannot seem to put two and two together why we are where we are. If everyone vetos new electrical infrastructure in their community, it simply doesn't get built.
Are they paying for electricity used by server farms. Or are they just paying more profits for owners of electricity producers? Do server farms get electricity below market price?
Ofc, possible long term contracts and options are involved in some of these markets. But there the option sellers would bear the cost.
This is a recurrent question and not just for servers.
In Europe it is constantly
>"why does the households of half of Europe pay for German unwillingness to have a good power mix? Why should anyone want more cross country or long range interconnects if it drives up local prices?"
Say Norway with abundant hydropower, they should by all right have cheap power. But reality is not so in half of the country because they're sufficiently interconnected to end up on a common bidders euro market and end up paying blood money for the poor political choices of countries they don't even share a border with.
Addition: this also creates perverse incentives. A good solution for many of the interconnected flat euro countries would love enormous hydropower overcapacity to be built in Norway at the cost of the local nature. This is great for whoever sells the hydropower. This is great for whoever is a politician that can show off their green all-hydro power mix in a country as hilly as a neutron star. But this is not great for whoever gets their backyard hiking trails reduced to a hydro reservoir.
But hey we do it with everything else too, "open pit mines are too destructive to have in our country, so we'll buy it from china and pretend we're making green choice. Globalism in a nutshell: Export your responsibility.
It's a supply-demand gap, but since the reasons for it are very apparent, it's completely reasonable to describe it as "consumers paying for [the existence of] datacenters".
I don't see how? It's much more reasonable to state "all electrical consumers are paying a proportionate amount to operate the grid based on their usage rates". This is typically spelled out by the rate commissions and designed to make sure one power consumer is not "subsidizing" the other.
In the case of your quoted article - taking it at face value - this means "everyone" is paying .02/khw more on their bill. A datacenter is going to be paying thousands of times more than your average household as they should.
I don't see a problem with this at all. Cheap electricity is required to have any sort of industrial base in any country. Paying a proportionate amount of what it costs the grid to serve you seems about as fair of a model as I can come up with.
If you need to subsidize some households, then having subsidized rates for usage under the average household consumption level for the area might make sense?
I don't really blame the last watt added to the grid for incremental uptick in costs. It was coming either way due to our severe lack of investment in dispatchable power generation and transmission capacity - datacenters simply brought the timeline forward a few years.
There are plenty of actual problematic things going into these datacenter deals. Them exposing how fragile our grid is due to severe lack of investment for 50 years is about the least interesting one to me. I'd start with local (and state) tax credits/abatements myself.
No, it's a lie. Consumers paying more because of data centers raising demand could be true, but that's not equivalent to them paying for the data centers' usage. The data centers also have to pay an increased rate when prices go up.
Data centers get commercial or maybe even industrial rates depending on their grid hookup and utilities love predictable loads. Those are lower than residential rates. If you're dishonest and don't understand the cost of operating a grid, you could say that's users paying for data centers. But then you'd need to apply it to every commercial/industrial user.
If the regular users were paying for data centers usage, why are so many of them going off-grid with turbines or at least partially on-prem generation?
In India, we have different energy consumption bands like 0-200kWh, 200-400kWh and so on. People whose consumption is in 0-200kWh pay less as compared to 200-400kWh and so on.
The lack of investment in energy infrastructure - especially dispatchable power sources and grid transmission - is finally coming to bite us.
Datacenters are simply the final straw/tipping point, and make a convenient scapegoat.
At some point you run out of the prior generation's (no pun intended) energy investments. Efficiency gains only get you so far, eventually you need capital investment into actually building things.
Yep, this is no different from any other consumption market showing up for power. The US has talked about 'brining manufacturing back' and while I don't see it happening, what did we expect that was going to do to the power grid.
One thing we should be careful about regarding calculations related to the larger set of "all data centers" vs only "GenAI" is that the data centers include all the predictive algorithms for social media and advertising. I, for one, would not want to misdirect ire at ChatGPT that really belongs directed at ads.
reply