this post was submitted on 08 Jun 2026
808 points (99.4% liked)

Technology

85243 readers
4168 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 4 points 1 hour ago

Pave paradise and put up a ~~parking lot~~ data center

[–] Eternal192@anarchist.nexus 37 points 8 hours ago (3 children)

AI is starting to show that it isn't worth the investment and they are STILL building more?!? WTF is going on?

[–] Auth@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

That is crazy and would make no sense for them to do. Why do you think they're doing that?

[–] Jankatarch@lemmy.world 19 points 7 hours ago

The bailout money will be double what they lost I am guessing.

[–] Throbbing_banjo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 7 hours ago (1 children)
[–] Napster153@lemmy.world 1 points 36 minutes ago

Profit Cults gotta commit to the behaviour

[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 37 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

It should be legal and acceptable to take back things given for one purpose that end up being used for something else.

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 20 points 7 hours ago

It actually is if the gift is conditional on a specified use - in writing of course.

[–] Siegfried@lemmy.world 3 points 8 hours ago

In my country it is legal to do so

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 7 points 8 hours ago

Shoulda got that in writing I guess.

[–] HotsauceHurricane@lemmy.world 26 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

I know the saying is "don't mess with Texas" but Texas seems to fuck itself over all the time. I would be raising hell about this if it was my backyard.

[–] ironycanal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 9 hours ago (18 children)

That's a mistranslation. The originql Chinese is closer to 'do not interrupt your enemy while he is making a mistake', but in the american vernacular, you can just say 'don't mess with Texas'.

[–] calebm@lemmy.world 14 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

Pretty sure "Don't mess with Texas" began its life as an anti-littering campaign in the late 80s or early 90s. It has been appropriated to mean all sorts of things, though. The original meaning might be even more relevant to data centers...

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (17 replies)
[–] tehn00bi@lemmy.world 3 points 7 hours ago

Fuck me. I used to live around there a while back

[–] IcedRaktajino@startrek.website 182 points 14 hours ago
[–] Arrandee@lemmy.world 117 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (5 children)

She’s gonna get a share of the lease revenue on that, right?

…right?

[–] IcedRaktajino@startrek.website 128 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (4 children)

Even if they didn't do her dirty, she wouldn't. She donated it to the city and relinquished ownership of it. The expectation, even written into the deed, was that the land was to be used as a park, but they turned around and sold it multiple times. Despite the stipulation in the original deed to the parks and recreation department, the data center is still going forward.

The story is just such a tragedy all around.

[–] Arrandee@lemmy.world 80 points 14 hours ago (3 children)

Huh, I’m not an attorney but that sure seems actionable if the intended use was documented in a contract.

[–] theolodis@feddit.org 1 points 2 hours ago

You don't get it, they will build a data center park!

[–] IcedRaktajino@startrek.website 101 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (1 children)

She's got an attorney and they're trying to stop it based on that, but it just seems like everyone involved (edit: besides her) just doesn't give a fuck.

[–] db2@lemmy.world 82 points 14 hours ago (4 children)

They've been taught that if they ignore the law and do whatever they want to they don't get punched in the face.

That will only go on for so long but it's going to suck until someone gets punchy.

[–] Mirshe@lemmy.world 46 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Especially with the recent East Wing argument, the lesson is "if you do it fast enough and ignore other people getting angry about it, you can do whatever you want."

[–] Signtist@bookwyr.me 4 points 8 hours ago

The only reason they ever didn't ignore people getting angry about things was because when people used to get angry they also got shooty.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] fratermus@piefed.social 15 points 11 hours ago

The relevant case law may be found in Molotov vs. New Construction .

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] cogman@lemmy.world 79 points 14 hours ago (3 children)

One of the more fucked up aspects of eminent domain. City/county/state governments can nuke deeds by using eminent domain. It allows them to turn a plot of land, regardless prior restrictions, into things like dumps.

The fucked up part about it is they can also turn public lands into private lands with that same trick.

What's frustrating is we still need eminent domain for good. It's basically the only way to build railways and roads. It even ends up being one of the few ways to deploy things like district heating/cooling and new fiber lines.

[–] Yosmonkol@piefed.social 18 points 8 hours ago

Eminent domain didn't factor into this particular case. The Taylor Economic Development Corporation simply ignored the deed and sold the land to BPP Projects LLC/Blueprint while Taylor City Council and Judge Ryan Larson approved and upheld it respectively.

[–] PalmTreeIsBestTree@lemmy.world 20 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

I believe eminent domain should have a very limited scope legally and should mostly only be used for public infrastructure projects and housing honestly…

[–] somenonewho@feddit.org 1 points 13 minutes ago

But AI is Public Infrastructure.

/s^just in case

[–] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 2 points 6 hours ago

We have different definitions of good. I don't see how building a highway system through other animals homes is considered "good".

[–] whotookkarl@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 11 hours ago
[–] frustrated_phagocytosis@fedia.io 39 points 13 hours ago

People should know that donating land like this is not at all guaranteed to keep the land from being developed. Promises to keep parks in existence is nothing when the city "needs" a new development, hospital, data center, whatever.

load more comments
view more: next ›