top 100 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 232 points 5 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 146 points 5 months ago* (24 children)

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

    …right?

  • source
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [–] 167 points 5 months ago* (18 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 112 points 5 months ago (12 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 145 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (7 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 109 points 5 months ago (5 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 63 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    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."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    What's the saying? "Ownership is 90% posession."

    Like with the stuff going on at the East Wing or the Kennedy Center, some people just move forward even if they're not allowed to because chances are they won't be stopped or penalized.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 19 points 5 months ago (3 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -8 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    While in many ways it is a tragedy, the cure is often worse. I on balance oppose deed restrictions, either you own the land and pay taxes, or you give up all control. Deed restrictions just force future generations to live by your values and that is a bad thing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 35 points 5 months ago* (1 child)

    It's a lot like another commenter mentioned about eminent domain. It can be used for good (roads, fiber deployments, district heating, etc) but also for things not so good (data centers, etc).

    I went out of my way to find a house that didn't even have a vestigial HOA deed restriction, so I get that. But when a private citizen donates something to the local municipality, it's pretty egregious to not honor those restrictions, especially for things that may take a while to develop.

    I'd donate my share of my family's farmland to build a park, but I wouldn't sell it for all the money in the world to build a datacenter or landfill or anything else, really.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 13 points 5 months ago

    It is a jerk move for sure and the voters should be mad about this. If you can't keep your word without a contract that says a lot about your lack of honor.

    I'm talking pure legality here though. The cities actions are legal and should be. They are however dishonorable and nobody should deal with the city again.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    As for your last line there, forcing future generations to live by the values of having a park isn't a bad thing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    What makes you so sure? I mean, I would hope that future generations will have parks, but we don't know what the future is going to be like. There may be some consideration that we couldn't even conceive of that would make it not a good thing for them to have a park. Or maybe parks are considered good in future generations, but there's a reason that that is a particularly bad spot to have a park.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 56 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    I was curious where the land was, and if I could help in any way.

    It's in Texas. I made a promise to myself that I'd never go back to Texas.

    Texas. Fucking. Suuuuuucks.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    “Don’t mess with Texas” now has a different meaning.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 54 points 5 months ago (3 children)

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

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 39 points 5 months ago (27 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.

  • source
  • hideshow 27 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 5 months ago* (26 children)

    That's kind of but not exactly a mistranslation. The original 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' and it means the same thing locally. Its one of those very regional sayings.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (2 children)

    Any time I think of the art of war, I think of this song:

    https://youtu.be/gGYlocT1kOA

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (12 children)

    I mean... I guess it could mean that now, but that is certainly not what it meant originally or how it was ever used.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (11 children)
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (9 children)

    Is "don't mess with Texas" Chinese?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (8 children)

    I just said its a translation. Yes. From sun tzu I think. In england they translate it the other way I said here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (7 children)

    Except the actual phrase didn't originate from whatever Chinese saying you're talking about. It was an anti-littering campaign, from Texas, in the 1980s.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago* (6 children)

    No, its from translating 'the art of war' into an american dialect. EPA just appropriated it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago* (5 children)

    You got evidence to back that up? Especially since the EPA had nothing to do with the ad campaign?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    Yes, but it would be very personally identifying.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    How is a translation of some ancient public work personally identifying

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (6 children)

    This has nothing to do with any translation of any language, it's a US English expression.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    It is a joke.

    They are intimating that texas makes so many mistakes that "Don't mess with texas" may be a blowhard boast to texans, but to everyone else it means "just let the idiots wreck themselves"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Still has nothing to do with translating anything from any other language.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    And since they doubled down on it being the actual origin when pressed on it, I don't think they were joking.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 76 points 5 months ago (8 children)
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (7 children)

    Hmmm Providence RI by any chance? LOL

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago (6 children)

    OP claims to be from southwestern europe here: On a post about his cat

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Not judging but curious, why did you dig into post histories? I see plenty of people doing it even if I never do, so I'm just curious why.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Can't answer for them but the few times I've done it is to make sure I'm talking with someone that can actually hold a conversation and I'm not arguing with a shill or looney. Sometimes just to see what a person is like on average. Especially if they act like a cunt for little reason. Some do it just for curiosity sake.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 75 points 5 months ago (20 children)

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

  • source
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 5 months ago (15 children)

    Because I do not think AI is the actual end goal. I think the actual end goal is cloud computing. They want everyone to use thin clients and connect to their data center instead of using a pc at home.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Don’t forget the surveillance state! The global buildout for the NWO one government surveillance state will be paid with your pension and retirement savings.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Nothing to do with a so called new world orde just the same people as before. It is just the government and industrialist that want more power. We are just living though the beginings of a cyberpunk setting.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Yeah but without the cool tech or space exploration. We just get the shitty parts.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago

    Well there is cool tech for the ultra rich (some examples, robotic prostetics, private space companies, Gabe's private lab yachts, brain interface, private exploration of the Marianna trench).

    We definetly get the sloppy seconds, if that.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    I think the real goal is the billionaires uploading their minds to achieve immortality. Definitely impossible, but that's what I think.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

    That was my theory to why Zuck was so interested in his Metaverse. Every billionaire is planning some sort of post-life or extending their lives one way or another. The same way kings and emperors of history have.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    There are multiple goals in mind such as surveillance, pumping the stock market, taking control out of people's hands, excuses to do things like lay people off, etc. In this case or in general for local governments, it's a matter of a select number of people getting a lot of money in their pockets and thus pushing for these data centers to happen.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 90 points 5 months ago (6 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.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (2 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    load more comments
    view more: next ›
    7 comments in c/fuck_ai@lemmy.world view that post
    3 comments in c/texas@lemmy.world view that post
    1 comment in c/usa@lemmy.ml view that post