As someone who has done architectural renderings for fun and profit, I highly approve of this. The greatest downfall of our contemporary "built environment," as folks call it, is how poorly modern materials age and weather.
Things like this have had me scratching my head for decades.
Why would local governments annex property, upgrade utilities, and build new roads without moving that burden to the entities driving those things? They routinely do this for new residential developments in many jurisdictions, refusing to annex subdivisions until the residents have paid for the utilities and roads.
There seems to be no reason that the current residents of a region should consider paying for these things to benefit the owners of facilities that do not generate enough tax revenue to support the added costs. Hospitals, schools, water treatment facilities, roads for their own use may merit issuing bonds that can be paid off based on new or existing taxes. But asking folks making standard wages to pitch in over decades for a company which could pay for the needed upgrades with a few weeks of revenue makes little sense. It seems disingenuous on its face or downright negligent at worst.
Does anyone have a bead on resources that could help me learn more about how all this works [or doesn't]?
Gobsmackingly poor deals made by city and town politicians are par for the course, and why https://www.strongtowns.org/ should be prerequisite reading for any council member, mayor, or board member approving deals that impact their community.
It's easy to look at a glossy project 2-pager and only see the immediate tax revenue.
It's much harder to glean a nuanced understanding of future financial burdens from a given project. No company will have any incentive to be forthright with that information.
because these entities have lots of money to pay people to convince local government that they should let them build their misery factories within their jurisdictions for "muh tax revenue" (that is paltry because corporate taxes end up being cut in the race to attract these vampires) and "muh jobs" (that usually dry up once the current thing in {industry} dies and the communities get left with the refuse. see also: the fracking and natural gas boom from ~20 years ago in the rust belt and the midwest).
> It's my strong opinion that Windows 2000 Server, SP4 was the best desktop OS ever.
Meanwhile, in 2025, with 64GB RAM and solid state drives, we hear, "Windows 11 Task Manager really, really shouldn't be eating up 15% of my CPU and take multiple seconds to fire up."
As someone who works on the design and construction of datacenters, I cannot stress enough how apropos this comment is. Even before the first conversation in your IDE starts, the load on national and local government resources, local utility capacity, and roadway infrastructure is enormous. We're all paying whether we're using the tools or not.
Nearly nobody cares about the load on “national and local government resources, local utility capacity, and roadway infrastructure” for any other day-to-day activity. Why should they care about the same for AI which for most people is “out there online” somewhere? Related my, crypto bros worried about electricity usage only so far as its expense went and whether they could move closer to hydro dams.
The parent comment's point is that we _should_ care because cheap frontier-model access (that many of us have quickly become hopelessly dependent on) might be temporary.
It's amazing that anyone that has seen anything in technology in the last 30 years can say, "better be careful. They might stop subsidizing this and then it's gunna get expensive!" is ridiculous. I can buy a 1Tb flash drive for $100. Please, even with every reason to amortize the hardware over the longest horizon possible are only going out 6 years. 64K should be enough for anyone right?
Yeah, I can't wait to buy some RAM for my PC! Oh, wait, the AI companies are buying up all the RAM sticks on the planet and driving up their prices to comical highs, surely these beacons of ethics and morality won't do the same with their services that are actively hemorrhaging Billions of dollars, they're providing these services to us out of the goodness of their black hearts and not any kind of monetary incentive after all!
They should care because they are expensive. If we become dependent on something that is expensive, we have to maintain a certain level of economic productivity to sustain our dependence.
For AI, once these companies or shareholders start demanding profit, then users will be footing the bill. At this rate, it seems like it'll be expensive without some technological breakthrough as another user mentioned.
For other things, like roads and public utilities, we have to maintain a certain level of economic productivity to sustain those as well. Roads for example are expensive to maintain. Municipalities, states, and the federal government within the US are in lots of debt associated with roads specifically. This debt may not be a problem now, but it leaves us vulnerable to problems in the future.
That's an accurate and sad truth about humanity in general, isn't it? We all feel safer and saner if we avoid thinking about how things really are. It's doubly true if our hands are dirty to some extent.
At the same time, I submit that ignoring the effectiveness of very small contingents of highly motivated people is a common failure mode of humanity in general. Recall that "nearly nobody" also describes "people who are the President of the United States." Observe how that tiny rounding error of humanity is responsible for quite a bit of the way the world goes - for good or ill. Arguably, that level of effectiveness doesn't even require much intelligence.
> Why should they care about the same for AI which for most people is “out there online” somewhere?
Well, some will be smart enough to see the problem. Some portion thereof will be wise enough to see a solution. And a portion of those folks will be motivated enough to implement it. That's all that's required. Very simple even if it's not very easy or likely.
Interesting. I don't find the TC to be ugly; I find it to be dissonant. It hurts my brain like missed harmonics in a musical performance do. Here are my reasons:
First thing I noticed on reveal day: it looks like a star ship from the the 1985 game, Elite.[0] It's a 3D model of a space ship for a computer that could barely keep up.[1] This design was a great starting point for a child's imagination, but even as a kid it was always assumed that this was the best we can do for now. The future would be far less disappointing. Verdict: this design isn't futuristic; it's nostalgic.
Looking down, I saw that its beautiful, shining, crystalline, space-going shuttlecraft aesthetic sits on matte, round, rubber wheels tied to the ground. It wants to fly, but it can't, and that is sad.
A few months later, I saw the unfortunate resemblance to industrial garbage receptacles usually kept out of site behind decorative enclosures. I realized that while designing one of those enclosures. Then the memes came.
I actually prefer a version I saw that was mounted on tracks for arctic environments.[2] It says, "I am a raw shard of ice carved from a massive glacier," and it pulls it off quite well.
reply