> the community would like to weigh in on whether they want a data center
This is the enabler of pure NIMBYism and we have to stop thinking this way. If a place wants this kind of land use and not that kind, then they need to write that down in a statute so everyone knows the rules. Making it all discretionary based on vibes is why Americans can't build anything.
I thought I made it clear, I'm not against data center build outs per se, a community might decide it's worth it to build one. If a community decides to go ahead with it, make it clear and open for the public to bid on it so the residents get the best deal available (e.g. reduced power bills, reduced property taxes, water usage limits, noise/light polution limits, whathaveyou...). These massive data centers are a new kind of business that most communities don't have much experience with, and I doubt they've had time to codify the rules. It sounds like the states are starting to add some more rules about transparency, which seems like a step in the right direction for making better deals for all involved.
The subtitle of the article tells us this is happening.
> Wisconsin has now joined several states with legislative proposals to make the process more transparent.
But it is a reactive measure. It has taken years for the impacts of these data centers to trickle down enough for citizens to understand what they are losing in the deal. Partially because so many of the deals were done under cover of NDAs. If anything, this gives NIMBYs more assurance that they are right to be skeptical of any development. The way these companies act will only increase NIMBYism.
> Making it all discretionary based on vibes is why Americans can't build anything.
Trusting large corporations to provide a full and accurate analysis of downside risks is also damaging.
It helps because the NDA enables a regulatory function of the local government that they otherwise wouldn't have. If there's no state or local statute that says the proponent has to reveal a given fact to the local government, then the local government has no way to demand it. The NDA is a negotiating instrument, they get to know the thing they want to know without having to go pass a law.
I mean, you are putting your finger right on the answer: the whole car thing doesn't work or make sense, and trying to make autonomous vehicles solve the unsolvable is never going to succeed.
Car culture in the US is toxic, and a lot of accidents and fatalities are a result of how poorly designed our infrastructure is. We design for cars, not for people (just one more lane bro, will totally fix traffic. Nevermind that a train can move double the capacity of that entire line of traffic).
Cars are the wrong solution, particularly in urban areas. A self driving car is still a car, and comes along with all the same problems that cars cause.
A person who hits a child, or anyone, in America, with no resulting injury, stands a roughly 0% chance of facing a judge in consequence. Part of Waymo's research is to show that even injury accidents are rarely reported to the police.
"Unfair" paragraph is way too short. This is the main problem! The outlier starvation you get from contended spinlocks is extraordinary and, hypothetically, unbounded.
Well, you need to have specified what you actually want. "Fair" sounds like it's just good, but it's expensive, so unless you know that you need it, which probably means knowing why, you probably don't want to pay the price.
Stealing is an example of an unfairness which can significantly improve overall performance.
Note that such capabilities were added to the 8 after it launched. When they launched it they did not even mention that it contains displayport alt mode.
For one thing, "C/C++" is not a thing. If you see C-like C++, that is C.
Part of OpenSSL's incomprehensibility is that it is not C++ and therefore lacks automatic memory management. Because it doesn't have built-in allocation and initialization, it is filled with BLAH_grunk_new and QVQ_hurrr_init. "new" and "init" semantics vary between modules because it's all ad hoc. Sometimes callees deallocate their arguments.
The only reason it needs module prefixes like BLAH and QVQ and DERP is that again it is not C++ and lacks namespaces. To readers, this is just visual noise. Sometimes a function has the same name with a different module, and compatible function signature, so it's possible to accidentally call the wrong one.
I don't know why you're still using OpenSSL but if you're able to switch I note that BoringSSL was not affected by any of the January 2026 OpenSSL advisories, and was also not affected by any of the advisories from 2025, and was affected by only one of the 2024 advisories. I also note that I don't see any hasty commit activity to s2n-tls that looks like a response to these advisories.
I like to recommend that project because it has a very transparent vulnerabilities approach, and is in my opinion written a lot more sane than OpenSSL which is somewhat not using standard C features because it always implements everything from scratch like a kernel does.
But yeah, anyways, WolfSSL comes from the embedded area in case that's your thing.
