Anonymous OP 13w

No. How are you an environmentalist and using ChatGPT🤨

6

Anonymous #1 13w

Oop

1

Anonymous #1 13w

Because I’m very much a realist who understands how computer cooling systems work.🤷‍♀️ the water is already there in a closed system, my usage doesn’t change anything about that. Understand that your social media usage also uses at least as much water. Fun fact- I run an environmental NGO restoring forests and support restorative grazing practices.

-2

Anonymous OP 13w

Also I would love to read your overview of the BBB and all the proposed amendments in order to be an informed voter on this issue

-1

Anonymous OP 13w

if it’s that easy then why don’t you explain what exactly is being exaggerated and how instead of vaguely referring to “propaganda”. I’m not gonna call you a fed but you’re kinda on some fed shit

1

Anonymous #3 13w

Not a fed, but fair enough. I don’t personally support the proposal, though I can see where the idea would be beneficial when written out with proper context and restrictions. A housing crisis does exist in the west and we have to work on it somehow. HOWEVER: The WS and SC have posted broad public land maps to make people believe that it all going to be sold. The reality is that the maximum amount that is being proposed is 1.5 million acres. That is 1% total across both agencies.

0

Anonymous #3 13w

The sales are only for housing development near urban areas and all existing leases (mineral, oil, gas, grazing) or wilderness is not included. The government still wants the money. Most recreation areas are multi use.

1

Anonymous #3 13w

If this was to be done properly, it could support transferring public lands to the states as well. But hiding it in budget isn’t the right way

1

Anonymous OP 13w

Jsyk computer cooling systems and data center cooling systems are not the same. Most data center cooling systems are not in a closed system because they use cooling towers. Open systems use more water but considerably less electricity, so you’re kinda fucked either way tbh. Social media doesn’t use nearly the same amount of water as AI because the programming is infinitely more simple, requiring exponentially less calculations.

1

Anonymous #4 13w

However I do understand that the average person cannot read hundreds of pages of legal nonsense. But someone else probably already has - just google the questions instead of using AI (and turn off google’s automatic AI responses while you’re at it)

4

Anonymous #4 13w

The argument around AI is much more complicated and unless a person either dies or goes back to a nomadic lifestyle with no electricity or running water and only hunts or forages for food (no farming because that uses more water) than you are going to have an impact. AI also needs regulation across many areas, so I won’t say it’s perfect.

0

Anonymous OP 13w

I am very skeptical of all my sources, I barely trust my congressionals to actually read these bills. Let alone take information from biased NGOs, news stations, and lobbyists groups. I don’t trust any stranger off the Internet to tell me what to believe. I go straight to the source and find it myself. My post was intended to get people to think for a second about what was happening and have an informed opinion about it.

1

Anonymous OP 13w

Calling your senator screaming about selling parks will get you laughed at. But calling with real concerns and sources is way more effective and actually lets them know how much their constituents care. This is a democracy where the participation of the people in the government is so crucial. And I would say a lack of that is a part of how we got here today

1