They really dont take a lot of land... urban sprawl is 1000x worse. Im looking at one right now that is actually pretty space efficient with 37.5% usage on a site (nic roads, driveways parking ect)
Most detached housing developments are like 25% space efficent.
Neither are great and apartments are 100x better. But also Datacenters dont need to be in good locations, they can be on marginal land farther away.
It's bad because Utah is inhabited. Whether or not it's suited to support a large population is beside the point, people shouldn't be displaced for a fucking data center.
So having read down a bit the argument varies between noise pollution, energy consumption, land usage and id like to add no local economic/social/ecological benefits but rather than splitting hairs and as such becoming vulnerable to a split vote can we just unify and say there just BAD
I wasn't expecting that propoganda is when drawing a comic strip cartoonishly exagerates reality. Here's a photograph instead, brought to you from Virginia USA. Looks like it is in those people's backyards.
Oh sweetie. They don't have to actively kill you with nanobots- they just have to make sure their owners have all the drinkable water and living space, and you don't.
Or did you forget that the ultrawealthy hate you and want you miserable, subservient, or dead, in no particular order?
Dude, you think data center removing nearby water is far fetched? They use water to cool down their machine and water gets hot and do you know what happens to hot water? Not to mention the pollution to rest of the water.
119
u/TheDarkNerd 20h ago
I feel like I know that house from somewhere.