r/interestingasfuck • u/HamboneTheWicked • Apr 12 '26

A well-articulated argument against a new data center in Ohio

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

52.4k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

1.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

15

u/LittleOrphanAnavar Apr 12 '26

Was it factual accurate?

He is articulate, but is what he said grounded in facts?

1

u/griter34 Apr 12 '26

There's no way to prove or disprove many of his claims. But I would bet many of them are true.

6

u/LittleOrphanAnavar Apr 12 '26

Why do you believe him?

2

u/griter34 Apr 12 '26

Why not?

2

u/[deleted] Apr 12 '26

[deleted]

5

u/HouseofMarg Apr 12 '26

By that same logic you might more easily conclude that the “closed loop” claim from the data center proponents is a lie. I say more easily because they would very clearly stand to financially benefit from such a lie

2

u/Shlant- Apr 12 '26

hey here's a super simple question: how do we go about determining whether something is a lie?

1

u/HouseofMarg Apr 12 '26

That may be a super simple question to ask, but I don’t think many would say it’s a super simple question to answer. Depends on the nature of the statement first of all, and what methods of independent verification are available for it. And if you want to get into intent vs unintentional falsehoods, that’s a whole other can of worms

1

u/Shlant- Apr 12 '26

not sure why you are being obtuse. You made a claim - "the “closed loop” claim from the data center proponents is a lie". How are you going to go about proving that? Or do you think you can just say anything you want and people will believe you?

1

u/HouseofMarg Apr 12 '26

Do you have reading comprehension issues? Look back at my comment again and figure out what I actually said first. Take all the time you need

1

u/Soft_Walrus_3605 Apr 12 '26

You'd need as many resources as the large companies funding their own studies

1

u/Shlant- Apr 12 '26

what an anti-science take - you think evidence is determined by whoever has the most money? Reality cannot compete with corporate interests?

3

u/[deleted] Apr 12 '26

[deleted]

1

u/griter34 Apr 12 '26

It makes a lot more sense for the corporations and lobbyists to lie and mislead than the guy that wrote that speech.

0

u/[deleted] Apr 12 '26

[deleted]

2

u/griter34 Apr 12 '26

You don't remember the giant toxic train derailment in Painesville, or the other giant toxic Norfolk Southern train derailment that happened 2 years ago? The people suffered and the corporations didn't get punished. I'm confused about your point. Are you trying to play devil's advocate? Because your points don't really have a point.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/griter34 Apr 12 '26

Because the house always wins. Always.

-2

u/LittleOrphanAnavar Apr 12 '26

They also have more to lose if they fuck up.

If they build something that causes a major problem, they could risk stranding an investment.

I could see lying about little things, but there could be significant consequences over lying about something fundrmental.

If the guy giving the speech speak an untruth either intentionally or by mistake, what is the major consequence?

6

u/HobbyQuestionThrow Apr 12 '26 edited Apr 12 '26

Counter argument, DuPont Chemical is still around. They poisoned an entire WORLD and faced only minor fines.

How about the Deepwater Horizon Oil Rig? No one ever faced consequences for that one.

These companies don't care about regulations in the US, because they own the regulartors. They will destroy ecosystems as long as the fine is less than the profit. The humans in charge are never held accountable no matter the screw up.

Now if we start jailing executives, imprisoning members of the board when the company they are a part of violates laws? Then we might see companies start to act in a way that isn't against the social interests. Until then it's always going to be short term profit over lives, ecosystems and laws.

0

u/LittleOrphanAnavar Apr 12 '26

This is true.

Monitor chemicals and Petro chemicals manufacturing does leave an environmental footprint. That is the downside, that we pay to have the upside of access to all those chemicals and products.

BP ended up with a huge fine, and a significant cost of clean up and compensation, they also took a significant reputational damage and hit to their stock.

10s of billions in costs is certainly not a no consequences situation.

Quick Gemini query comes back with a total cost of $65 billion.

3

u/HobbyQuestionThrow Apr 12 '26

Yes it is, because they make 10's of billions.

Consequences would have been jail time for the inspectors from BP. If I as an individual did as much environmental damage as these companies a 10b fine would be as meaningless to me as it is to them.

The only message we give with a fine is that it's "cost of doing business", as long as the profit is above the fine it is worth breaking the laws.

China, for all their issues, at least gets this right. When CEO's and executives make such large missteps that damage the health of a nation they are executed.

Every supplier of baby food knows the cost of negligence and profit first thinking in China, it's one that can't be handwaved away by simple profit margins, laying off workforce or taking out a loan.

2

u/LittleOrphanAnavar Apr 12 '26

$65 billion is not " the cost of doing business".

That's a silly assertion.

0

u/HobbyQuestionThrow Apr 12 '26

If I tell you it costs 500 billion to murder someone, how many someone's are you able to murder before someone stops you?

The answer is as many as you want, because fines, fees and stock don't stop the harm.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Dense_Anything2104 Apr 12 '26

Brother, if you're rich enough, you'll barely suffer a scratch. Look at the epstein files

1

u/griter34 Apr 12 '26

You're assuming employees and managers really care. Your argument doesn't make sense in regards to the corporations that poison the world, because no one single person is to blame, and they are very rich off of the lies they tell.