Energy generation has constraints, whether it's fuel, processing requirements, or the infrastructure's generation capacity.
At best, this is proof of concept that will revolutionize the environmental impacts of Big Tech's new and even more environmentally damaging data centers.
But we've seen that dog and pony show countless times whenever the environmental cost of data centers gets too much press.
This is most likely just a cynical PR prop to wave around, as the rest of the AI facilities aren't run so "greenly".
Why does almost every post in Technology have some comment trying to bring up the "capitalism bad" topic in some way?
Are you trying to say that Communism would have done a better job?
We've already seen how that has played out a few times already.
Are you trying to say that Communism would have done a better job?
Yes.
We've already seen how that has played out a few times already.
Yes indeed, the USSR had affordable housing, low homelessness, high employment, no rents, no bills and after a devastating land war against a superior power that flattened half the country, they still had the science and tech to beat the US to space (and develop nuclear tech without cowtowing to nazi scientists) and got the GDR to decriminalise homosexuality all while US still had Jim Crow laws. It is obvious to anyone - especially the corpos - that a planned economy is superior in allocation of resources.
Sure luxuries weren't as available, but normal, working people lived comfortably and without financial stress.
That's not to say that USSR's own imperialist ambitions weren't misguided at best and crimes against humanity at worst, though.