You like their food

What the fuck are you talking about?

I said compared to every other fastfood place that uses processed chicken patties, it’s good.

Some people don’t.

The other point you e completely missed:

So if anyone is boycotting Chick-fil-A, they have valid reasons. It’s just damn near every other option is even worse, so if they have consistent logic their boycott list is every major corporation.

How the fuck is “So if anyone is boycotting Chick-fil-A, they have valid reasons” defending chicfila’s politics?!

I’m saying boycotting them is valid

But only boycotting them is illogical

Greasy beading that sloughs off the chicken immediately isn’t good by any metric, fast food or otherwise.

Ok buddy, but:

1. That’s not the norm, and remember, this is in comparison to other fastfood options.

2. If you’re boycotting them, how do you know that’s what it’s like?

But most importantly:

Company is rotten

I said every corporation sucks…

That includes chicfila…

They also went to the supreme court so they could determine the healthcare their employees get.

Not sure why you expect people to know what you’re referring too…

That’s just a lie…

The food is good, for “fast” food it’s amazing. Like, I don’t think there’s another fastfood option that hasn’t fully transition to the mcChicken method were the patty is reconstituted scraps.

Their politics with LGBTQ is (was?) absolute dog shit and more than enough reason to boycott them as an isolated issue…

But honestly looking at any other aspect of their company, and they’re one of the most worker friendly options. Which again, is not a high bar to clear, especially in fast food.

So if anyone is boycotting Chick-fil-A, they have valid reasons. It’s just damn near every other option is even worse, so if they have consistent logic their boycott list is every major corporation. Like, the owner has 10 billion dollars, no billionaire owned company is going to be ethical. If someone’s only issue with Chick-fil-A is the anti-lgbt stuff, that doesn’t mean they’re a good person, it means they only care about the demographic they consider “us”.

But again; saying they’re food isn’t good is just a flat out lie.

but why not just keep the vents on the seafloor…no boat is needed.

…

Yes, you can not “move” a geothermal vent from the ocean floor, and especially not onto a boat…

The boat is what’s needed to sink the equipment deep to the ocean floor.

I think the real problem is, you don’t know what a geothermal vent actually is.

https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/deep-sea-hydrothermal-vents/

The entire reason these are perfect is it’s near boiling water surrounded by deep sea near frozen temps. You don’t get that anywhere near a shore. And even if you did, doing it 20 miles or 200 miles from any shore is the same amount of effort.

But I got to tap out here

Jesus…

That’s honestly what you thought?!

I meant that geothermal vents are rarely on the shoreline anyways, and a bot is what’s needed, not coastal facilities.

I mean damn dude, you actually thought putting a fat center on a boat is what I was suggesting?

Yah but that requires coastal development or in the vicinity of the coast

There’s this new thing called “boats”…

And data cables can (and do) run along the ocean floor, they don’t even need to connect to mainland, they can join an existing cable.

I still question the need for these data centers

We needed them before AI and well need them after…

Finding an environmental positive way to have them is worthwhile. Arguing that it’s expensive literally just means you’re putting a price on our planet. Which is especially stupid since the billionaires are the ones keeping those savings.

Quit fucking simping for billionaire techbros. Even if you don’t realize it’s what you’re doing, it’s what you’re doing. Fuck their profits the planet matters more.

The only way to avoid negative environmental consequences I’ve seen implemented is Japan using geothermal vents in the ocean.

They harvest the heat for energy, and the ocean (that would get heated up anyways) for cooling.

The net effect is an artificial reef and spreading the heat out further in a temperate zone that facilitates biological growth.

I don’t think there’s any scenario that actually works on land. Maybe out in the middle of the desert powered only by solar and using an absolutely massive heatsink that dumps it all over night when the desert is cold. But the cost for that would be insane.

Once they’ll built they’ll start to argue that they pollute anywhere so might as well stay there…

And still build as many as they can anywhere.

Their MO seems to be do whatever it takes to get started then finish

Personally though, I’ve watched the march of technology first hand, I’ve seen how this works and I see where there’s room for advancement.

…

Right…

My example:

But that assumption is the same as thinking a fallen object will keep gaining speed until it passes the speed of light

Is literally what you’re doing.

You were born and lived during a period the apple was increasing in velocity, you may have witnessed it fall from the tree, but probably not. But that apple is going to hit the ground, that’s the real limit for how small we can make a chip, we’re already at the point with ASML that we have to fuck with light waves and only a single Dutch company can make the machine.

Are there still gains?

Sure, but the days of doubling is over, Moores law is dead.

It’s a direct analogy to the speed of light, something can double in speed every year for a very long time. But eventually it’ll stop being able to and will increase in speed at a barely perceptible level, never beating light speed.

Like, this is an insanely basic concept, and you’re entire opposition is:

You don’t understand, this has always happened for the last few decades I’ve paid attention so it’ll always keep happening

Which is just completely illogical. And I’m not going to keep wasting time on people like you

I’m honestly stunned you’ve missed the entire point this badly…

How many hours a day do you use chatbots?

You’ve heard climate change was happening that whole time too, do you stop believing it?

Someday everyone alive will die, does it stop being true if you live to 20?

And in the very likely case that seems unrelated: just because people say something will happen, doesn’t mean it happens tomorrow

For fucks sake man, if someone tells you “winter is coming” in July, are your running around in August talking about how it’ll only keep getting hotter?

Have you ever even considered using logic before?

If the average laptop people can afford can’t run windows, windows is going to change that. Because their entire business model.is being the default.

This is like saying tomatoes could colonize the galaxy enslaving all forms of life, if they evolved into completely different animals…

It’s true, it just doesn’t matter.

Anything can do everything if it becomes capable to do it.

There is something here:

StarSkirmish pits AI-made StarCraft-playing bots against one another, as well as against human-made bots. OpenAI’s GPT-6 Astra and Claude Opus 5.5 were essentially tied as the best-performing AI-made bots, but they couldn’t top Stardust, the top-rated human-made bot.

On Friday, GPT was facing off against Claude and the human-created bot Pluto, but according to Kotaku, it couldn’t quite get an edge. So it resorted to a tactic that is becoming alarmingly common for modern AI models — it broke the rules. GPT-6 Astra went and downloaded Stardust, and started running that instead of its own bot.

The big argument for why AI is supposed to be world changing, is the assumption it will be able to automate things better than a human, eventually.

That some day an AI will be able to make a better AI than a human could, and that AI would then be able to make an AI better than itself, and then it just becomes a question of who has the most hardware. Which is why the data center building is being pushed so hard.

But that assumption is the same as thinking a fallen object will keep gaining speed until it passes the speed of light. Or that Moore’s law would really keep going forever despite a very real limit in physics for how small a chip can be.

A society where AI “drives innovation” will become technologically stagnant, because it literally can’t innovate.