AWS flex used to be they did not tell you where the data centers are physically located, and availability zones are actually at least 50 to 100 miles apart, unlike Google and Azure where multi-AZ its just two firewalls in the same building...
Good times. Now your cloud provider selection matrix looks like:
- Number of THAAD batteries within intercept range
- Active defense agreements with NATO member states
- Licensed Ukrainian anti-drone EW systems per facility
- Iron Dome coverage overlap percentage
AWS Shield is going to mean a Patriot battery included...We went from cloud is just someone else's computer to cloud is just someone else's military base...
Fertilizer shortages worldwide resulting in massive famines all over the developing world, energy shortages that are affecting critical utilities supplies in the developing world... Sounds good, amirite?
We have to evolve ways -- or bring back ways -- of making our agriculture less petroleum dependent. But short of a shock of this nature, we are not going to do any research in that direction because of trillions of dollars of investments in that way of doing business and in their vested interests. The oil will start flowing soon enough, but this is the defibrillation that the world needed, even if it didn't want it.
The upshot is it could accelerate the development of smaller local fertiliser factories running on solar power. There’s a few that have been built and demonstrated. If we start to build them in large numbers hopefully the costs will become reasonable.
That’s for nitrogen. Sulphur is another matter. I suppose in the long term we should just adapt food production to what can actually be sourced sustainably and locally.
7 million people per year die prematurely from air pollution alone. Are you suggesting we should just keep killing those people indefinitely instead?
Those 7 million lives were apparently never worth fixing things for; now maybe we can shift away from a fossil fuel-driven economy and cut back on a lot of that pollution, and maybe save a ton of lives in the long run.
Yes it is horrible that people are going to die from famines, no one is arguing against that, but maybe it will result in shifting our economy to something where people don't die of famines and also don't die of air pollution.
Perhaps you're giving thee cheers for Britain 'While the US ramps up oil production to unprecedented levels, the UK is refusing to tap into its vast reserves'
Nice if you're not poor.
I don't know much about geopolitics so tell me if I'm off base but it seems to me if they're making threats it's because the facility is not a high enough priority to actually strike? If they wanted to and had enough ordinance to overwhelm whatever defenses, then they just would right? But they can't/won't so they're hoping to gain advantage without actually spending ordinance?
Regardless, it is grimly interesting to watch the next chapter of tech companies becoming increasingly significant in geopolitics.
The Iranian's regime's minimal goal is regime security. To that end, it aims to apply maximum pressure/cost on Israel/US, and hope that they will relent at some point. Iran has no other means to actually cause the Israel/US to stop (as in, it lacks the ability militarily deter or defeat).
Iran recognizes that it is not just the actual damage, but the credible threat of damage that incurs pressure/cost. For example, there are piles of ships holed up in the Gulf - Iran has the capability to strike at them, but they don't need to. Publicity is part of magnifying the threat.
Iran likely lacks the capability to actually assuredly destroy any single target of its choosing. Iran instead likely has the capability of destroying maybe 1-10% of targets that it actually chooses to engage. However, it can hold hundreds of targets at threat to try to ratchet up the pressure. In addition, by casting an ever wider net of claimed targets, when it does get around to attacking, it's more likely to be able to construct a narrative of "calling their shot".
No. They have been able to destroy much more important and hardened targets, i.e multiple AN/TPY-2 radars, the extremely valuable AN/FPS-132 radar in Qatar, $Bs worth of aircraft on the apron at Prince Sultan airbase in Saudi.
Not to mention being able to quickly deliver counter-attacks to like for like infrastructure when theirs has been attacked. i.e the Ras Laffan counter punch after South Pars was attacked and the UAE aluminium plants after their steel mills were hit etc.
They have also already essentially taken AWS Bahrain permanently offline at this stage.
So they are certainly capable of it but simply hitting the target removes the leverage of using it in a negotiation. If it's already gone you can't say "we won't hit X if you agree to terms Y before time Z".
There is no reason to just strike it. The point is it is a threat and they want to raise the cost of continuing to bomb them.
If they can strike and destroy $1 trillion worth of things it would be very dumb to do that right away. Then they will have used up all their valuable targets and they will have less leverage going forward. Instead they would want to destroy $50 billion a day until they get what they want.
No... hitting it gives them nothing. What MIGHT give them something is the threat of hitting it, it might change the behavior of their enemy. Of course, if push comes to shove they might have to actually hit it to not lose credibility, but that's not the ideal outcome for them. Think of a kidnapper at a disadvantage threatening to shoot the hostage.
Noone would be remotely surprised if Iran attacked a nominally American target, so it's puzzling why the Iranians would talk about it instead of just doing it. They would also need to be careful not to cross the line between pressuring friends of the US administration to lean on Washington and pushing so hard that those friends double down on their commitment to the US. It's not like the Gulf states are simpatico with Iran after all, they might think for example that the Shia worldview is vaguely heretical and wacky anyway so why should they not let the US shoot at them.
You are puzzled why Iran threatens the destruction of assets of powerful American oligarchs if policy changes aren't made? Allow me to point out that political leaders rely on the patronage those oligarchs and are strongly incentivized to do what they say.
Its exactly the right play for Iran to threaten but not do and hope that corporate greed panic does the work for them.
Oracle and OpenAI centers getting hit, oil shortages forcing the world the move away from fossil fuels ... my cynical ass feels hope.
AWS flex used to be they did not tell you where the data centers are physically located, and availability zones are actually at least 50 to 100 miles apart, unlike Google and Azure where multi-AZ its just two firewalls in the same building... Good times. Now your cloud provider selection matrix looks like:
- Number of THAAD batteries within intercept range
- Active defense agreements with NATO member states
- Licensed Ukrainian anti-drone EW systems per facility
- Iron Dome coverage overlap percentage
AWS Shield is going to mean a Patriot battery included...We went from cloud is just someone else's computer to cloud is just someone else's military base...
Underground data centers are looking better by the day. Deep underground. I can see some uses for abandoned mines.
Orbital data centers looking like even worse of an idea. Mighty exposed up there.
Fertilizer shortages worldwide resulting in massive famines all over the developing world, energy shortages that are affecting critical utilities supplies in the developing world... Sounds good, amirite?
We have to evolve ways -- or bring back ways -- of making our agriculture less petroleum dependent. But short of a shock of this nature, we are not going to do any research in that direction because of trillions of dollars of investments in that way of doing business and in their vested interests. The oil will start flowing soon enough, but this is the defibrillation that the world needed, even if it didn't want it.
The upshot is it could accelerate the development of smaller local fertiliser factories running on solar power. There’s a few that have been built and demonstrated. If we start to build them in large numbers hopefully the costs will become reasonable.
That’s for nitrogen. Sulphur is another matter. I suppose in the long term we should just adapt food production to what can actually be sourced sustainably and locally.
Amazing, and people wonder why there is this immense backlash to environmentalists.
"Tons of people will die, but thats fine if it achieves my political/environmental goals"
7 million people per year die prematurely from air pollution alone. Are you suggesting we should just keep killing those people indefinitely instead?
Those 7 million lives were apparently never worth fixing things for; now maybe we can shift away from a fossil fuel-driven economy and cut back on a lot of that pollution, and maybe save a ton of lives in the long run.
Yes it is horrible that people are going to die from famines, no one is arguing against that, but maybe it will result in shifting our economy to something where people don't die of famines and also don't die of air pollution.
The number of people who'd die from famines will be much much higher than 7 million per year.
Is it better to have no upset at all until we are past the point of no return for global warming based extinction?
Is there any reason to believe we didn't already sail past that point decades ago?
Correct
[dead]
Perhaps you're giving thee cheers for Britain 'While the US ramps up oil production to unprecedented levels, the UK is refusing to tap into its vast reserves' Nice if you're not poor.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/01/22/americas-energy-...
Germany closing Nuclear energy generation enters the room ...
Then Germany, for no reason at all...
Being the datacenter is apparently mostly a scam, curious on who concocted an attack as an exit?
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/openais-massive-stargate-data...
The Abu Dhabi center is most certainly not a scam.
>newClAWtimes.com
What a wild time to be alive!
> Every article is researched, written, and edited by AI agents, with editorial oversight from the founding team.
Proceeds to not name the founding "team"
Believe it or not? Also AI!
There are AI-generated news sites for AI now. This is not what I expected.
>What This Means for Agent Builders
Lol, that was a good one.
A meteorite could wipe out half the planet and these guys would be like "10 tips to adapt OpenClaw to the new post-impact world".
I don't know much about geopolitics so tell me if I'm off base but it seems to me if they're making threats it's because the facility is not a high enough priority to actually strike? If they wanted to and had enough ordinance to overwhelm whatever defenses, then they just would right? But they can't/won't so they're hoping to gain advantage without actually spending ordinance?
Regardless, it is grimly interesting to watch the next chapter of tech companies becoming increasingly significant in geopolitics.
The Iranian's regime's minimal goal is regime security. To that end, it aims to apply maximum pressure/cost on Israel/US, and hope that they will relent at some point. Iran has no other means to actually cause the Israel/US to stop (as in, it lacks the ability militarily deter or defeat).
Iran recognizes that it is not just the actual damage, but the credible threat of damage that incurs pressure/cost. For example, there are piles of ships holed up in the Gulf - Iran has the capability to strike at them, but they don't need to. Publicity is part of magnifying the threat.
Iran likely lacks the capability to actually assuredly destroy any single target of its choosing. Iran instead likely has the capability of destroying maybe 1-10% of targets that it actually chooses to engage. However, it can hold hundreds of targets at threat to try to ratchet up the pressure. In addition, by casting an ever wider net of claimed targets, when it does get around to attacking, it's more likely to be able to construct a narrative of "calling their shot".
No. They have been able to destroy much more important and hardened targets, i.e multiple AN/TPY-2 radars, the extremely valuable AN/FPS-132 radar in Qatar, $Bs worth of aircraft on the apron at Prince Sultan airbase in Saudi.
Not to mention being able to quickly deliver counter-attacks to like for like infrastructure when theirs has been attacked. i.e the Ras Laffan counter punch after South Pars was attacked and the UAE aluminium plants after their steel mills were hit etc.
They have also already essentially taken AWS Bahrain permanently offline at this stage.
So they are certainly capable of it but simply hitting the target removes the leverage of using it in a negotiation. If it's already gone you can't say "we won't hit X if you agree to terms Y before time Z".
There is no reason to just strike it. The point is it is a threat and they want to raise the cost of continuing to bomb them.
If they can strike and destroy $1 trillion worth of things it would be very dumb to do that right away. Then they will have used up all their valuable targets and they will have less leverage going forward. Instead they would want to destroy $50 billion a day until they get what they want.
>> There is no reason to just strike it.
If AI is being used to target them, the first thing to hit in a war should be the AI data centers. Iran is fighting the first war with Skynet.
No... hitting it gives them nothing. What MIGHT give them something is the threat of hitting it, it might change the behavior of their enemy. Of course, if push comes to shove they might have to actually hit it to not lose credibility, but that's not the ideal outcome for them. Think of a kidnapper at a disadvantage threatening to shoot the hostage.
It's not a military target. It's a very expensive target with ties to some people that might have some influence on the Trump administration.
Trump is threatening to destroy Iran's infrastructure. This is a counter-threat: "You've got infrastructure that we can destroy."
I guess the idea is to create pressure on the US govt. And it will only happen when the elites assets are damaged.
They did the same with US companies in the Gulf region, and then followed through with attacks on Oracle and Amazon data centers.
This strategy absolutely works.
it "works" while nuclear armaments are not used. And it may happen. Iran is very well geolocated to become 1st ever "nuclear war exclusion zone".
Noone would be remotely surprised if Iran attacked a nominally American target, so it's puzzling why the Iranians would talk about it instead of just doing it. They would also need to be careful not to cross the line between pressuring friends of the US administration to lean on Washington and pushing so hard that those friends double down on their commitment to the US. It's not like the Gulf states are simpatico with Iran after all, they might think for example that the Shia worldview is vaguely heretical and wacky anyway so why should they not let the US shoot at them.
You are puzzled why Iran threatens the destruction of assets of powerful American oligarchs if policy changes aren't made? Allow me to point out that political leaders rely on the patronage those oligarchs and are strongly incentivized to do what they say.
Its exactly the right play for Iran to threaten but not do and hope that corporate greed panic does the work for them.
The underlying source here is https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/iran-threatens-co.... That news story embeds the actual video as well as providing more detailed context about the threat. Can we change the link to that?
Some more discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47654757
This is a slop article quoting shitty sources that auto generate articles from twitter headlines.
How can you possibly be wrong not to trust Iran's IRGC?
Can an admin please replace the link with one that isn't AI spam? https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/iran-threatens-co...
Do it
curious how they got Satya wrong