- cross-posted to:
- inperson@slrpnk.net
- cross-posted to:
- inperson@slrpnk.net
You must log in or # to comment.
I think more data centers are probably a good investment, but endorse making very sure that the costs are paid by the data center. They should not be getting cheap water.
Without reading the article. This is an interesting premise. I’d like to ask a question to you… Why do not want a Datacenter in MI? Followed with, how much do you use the internet and where do you think it all comes from? Basically would you be good with losing access to your favorite sites (regardless of what they may be) in order to not have a DC in Michigan?
Exorbitant increases in electricity costs, environmental damage and rampant water usage, and the fact that the data center is almost certainly going to be used for “AI” and not internet providers. Believe it or not, Michigan already has access to the internet!
Where do you think the internet is served from? Generally Datacenters. You talk about environmental impact but don’t want it in your state, which is ultimate NIMBY’ism. So I’m curious, where should Datacenters be, since you’ll still benefit from them?
There are still hundreds of miles of dark fiber in city centers. Server racks in cities are not full, and are instead being emptied despite the fact that it costs more to host data in places like rural Michigan. Servers hosted in urban settings have lower latency due to their proximity to primary network nodes, and have higher performance and uptime due to the concentration of talent and experience in urban settings.
Giant data centers planned in smaller communities are motivated by one thing - a swapped power relationship between the community and the corporation. The ability to ‘externalize’ many of the higher costs of hosting data remotely to the people living in these smaller communities is the profit motive behind their construction.
