I met Mr Draper once. I was staying at the SFO hyatt, or maybe the Mariott, and had a couple hours to kill after breakfast and noticed there was some sort of conference going on, so I crashed it. I walked into a talk room and sat in the front row and introduced myself to my neighbors. On one side was Steven Levy (author of many books in the industry) and the other was Bill Draper. I don't really remember the conversation, nor even the topic of the conference - it was a brief conversation in the 5 or 10 minutes before the talk started. At the time I didn't really know who he was but I was a little star-struck by Mr Levy, and it was Levy who told me I should be more impressed by being next to Draper. Mr Draper thought that was funny and the three of us chatted a bit more about whatever. I found it interesting that Mr. Draper was a surprisingly relatable guy (particularly given what I know about him know) and that he was very insightful of technology for someone who was in his 70 or 80s at the time.
RIP Mr. Draper. I didn't know it when we talked, but you helped make my career possible - thanks!
I got to meet Bill briefly while taking part in his grandson Adam’s Boost VC accelerator in the early bitcoin days.
Bill would attend both events in support of Tim and Adam. I had a great experience with both the Drapers as a founder.
One time, while living with my cofounder in the hotel Tim was restoring in downtown San Mateo, I broke the hotel elevator.
The laundry was on the basement level and ~everyone used this brick to prop open the door so could dash to the laundry move it to the dryer and dash back without loosing the car.
Well, the brick was not well propped and somehow the door pushed it to a point where it could close but also somehow carry it up the shaft.
Watching the door close it was just like, uh oh.
Up goes the elevator idk a few stories and then the sound of a brick tumbling down the shaft hitting who knows what.
Ya, the elevator stopped working immediately. I owned up to it the next day, writing Tim and offering to pay for what probably would have consumed all of our accelerator funds of damage I had caused.
He thanked me for my honesty and said not to worry about it.
Tim (and Adam) went on to invest in not one but two of my ventures.
Anyway, I realize this is about Bill but I think a person can be reflected in not only themselves but those that they raise and wanted to share this.
Oh and Bill, at least back then, did not think much of Bitcoin. :)
If I hear "they" are foreign" I'm capable of any or all of the following as situationally relevant:
* deciding if singular or plural is relevant based on the antecedent.
* deciding if singular or plural is relevant based on other context.
* deciding if the singular or plural actually meaninfully changes the meaning of the statement within it's context and not worrying about if it doesn't.
* in the vanishingly rare cases where it's meaningful, contextually unclear, and I am still unsure, I can ask.
I may be an imbecile, but fortunately it takes only a minuscule amount of mental power to handle all this. English has a lot of redundancies and deducing from context is built into the language.
So when hear a simple snippet "they are foreign" I assume either it will become clear from further context, or it doesn't matter how many people "they" refers to since someone is having a tantrum about pronoun usage.
Perhaps what's really bothering you isn't that I pointed out the historicity of a common, centuries-old pattern in the English language, but rather that someone missed naptime and is grumpy.
Not really, "they" has been used to refer to a singular gender neutral subject for way longer than you've been alive. Whether it refers to plural or singular subject, and often who it refers to, is all pulled from the context of the story.
No, no it hasn't. The first time I heard it was about 20 years ago. Its annoying and intentionally confusing. People used the singular pronouns before that and just gendered them when that provided clarity. The gender neutral singular pronoun in English is 'it'. I get that you think the world was created when you were born but that's just not the case and all you are doing is making older people not trust your judgement.
PS Communication normally is about clarity. This type of intentionally confusing change in grammar is straight out of Bolshevik propaganda. Just like the phrase "politically correct" which literally means its wrong but I will have the state use violence against you if you point out that its wrong.
Here's my source[0], certainly I doubt all of society in the 1300s designed a word to intentionally confuse you 700 years later. But feel free to provide your sources.
Just because you heard it 20 years ago, does not mean that it was not used before.
In addition, "it" is not used for people. Yes, it is a gender neutral pronoun, but would be considered very offensive if you refer to a person by "it". The only example where you can use it usually is a baby whose name and/or sex is not known, often prior to them being born.
The phrase "politically correct" mostly only used by "anti-woke" snowflakes who believe they are better than those who tell others to leave non-binary folks alone, yet at the same time will rage all day just because some said that they're a "they" or some silly little thing. As if they've got nothing else to do in life but get angry at someone for having a preferring on how they want to be referred to.
Also implying that the natural evolution of the English language is some form of propaganda is wild to me. The language is essentially an evolution of German, with heavy influence from Roman/French and Old Norse. Saying that it is propaganda is like saying there's been some psyops by millions of people happening over centuries to mislead millions of other people.
The only correct thing you've said is "communication normally is about clarity". Honestly, to me, it feels like that hasn't really worked on you. You're certainly not clear about the history of the English language.
> if you hear "they are foreign" you don't think its multiple people?
This is almost never ambiguous within context. I blame the outrage on illiteracy. If you don't read a lot, even a simple turn of phrase or grammatical ambiguity could be anxiety inducing.
I'm sober, both in the immediate sense and in the sense that I haven't had a drink in 23 years. I know that drinking is not a good thing for me, for many reasons.
If you want to go home and have a beer or whatever - have a good time. If you want to go to the bar later and have a drink - maybe I'll go with you and sip a fancy mocktail or something, we can take turns buying rounds. If you want to get wasted and party all night - have fun, I had a lot of fun nights that way (please don't drive though).
I'm not opposed to anyone else's drinking. I just know I can't.
Teetotal implies an opposition to all alcohol use. A teetotaler is against you drinking. I'm not opposed to that at all, I just choose for myself to be sober, for a myriad of personal reasons.
There's likely an awful lot of tricky logic in the queries, stored procedures, etc. Dealing with taxes (very location and situation depending), details of any given customer's plan, equipment charges, etc etc for lines going back for decades... this stuff is hard to migrate correctly. It's not necessarily about qps.
I don't know specifically, I'm not the person who posted about that database. But it happens all the time, even in 2026 at good tech companies.
It tends to come from a couple of common places...
* efficiency - triggers, stored procedures and constraints can often speed up throughput in terms of transactions per second by reducing the number of round trips from the application to the db. I know above i mentioned its not about qps necessarily, but a telephone billing db probably includes records of calls and txts and so on, which across millions of people adds up.
* Older architecture patterns didn't put a single service in front of a database for that service. Instead theres a single database for the company, or for a function within the company, and many programs and services interacted with that database. In such an architecture, stored procedures and triggers are really useful for some business logic, to ensure consistency between various systems... Need to update tax rules for one state? Just donit in the db instead of the sales pos system at the stores and the billing system and the phone operator sales system and the website and the gateway for 3rd party sellers, etc. there's a certain logic to it too... This data is fundamental to the business and has lots of rules associated with it, those make sense to place together - the rules change independently of the systems accessing those rules, and over the life of the company those rules tied to laws and accounting may last far far longer than any given pos system or website rewrite.
The data tier is one of the lowest tiers in the stack (for bigcorps with centralized DBs), and changes bubble up the stack. Change an API and a few upstreams have to change. Change the core DB and _everything_ has to change.
That makes the schema calcify, and the DB becomes the most stable format of the data. I've worked more than one place where "upgrade the core DB between major versions" was a multi-quarter effort.
Instead of ranting about nimbyism, why not go to these neighborhoods where people don't want to live next to datacenters, and offer to trade houses with them?
You get the datacenters you want, and they get the place they want without a datacenter. I know you won't, because you only think the consequences of a datacenter next door are just fine when its other people who have to deal with them.
What about the water treatment plant? Or the power station? Or the new subway line?
Why don't you go live in the woods since building anything where anyone doesn't want it built is so evil?
Maybe because you only think of the consequences of building things when it's for anything other than AI?
In many places these data centers make communities money. It's really not as black and white as you are making it. If I'm getting paid out I also am not sure why you think it's a trade nobody would make. Maybe you live in a very nice house.
I support UBI. No one should be poor in the United States. My goal would be telling someone "why don't you trade places with someone in x" in the United States should never feel like a threat. If I were to have to reside next to a data center to make this happen then so be it. Data centers are not the problem. Income inequality is. I think you have me confused with someone else.
What's your plan to solve income inequality? Don't build anything, crash the economy, and push more kids into student debt so they can take up bullshit knowledge work jobs?
> Why don't you go live in the woods since building anything where anyone doesn't want it built is so evil?
Wow, you're really triggered by the idea that people should get a say about what happens in their lives.
You'll note I didn't oppose the datacenters - I offered a solution to getting the datacenters built. If you trade houses with the people who don't want a data center in the neighborhood you're getting the datacenter! It's just that you're so upset about someone else having the ability to affect their own lives that you aren't seeing that you have the same power, and can work towards your own perfect world with power plants and datacenters and sewage treatment plants and subway stops just down the street!
I think the problem with that plan is what I pointed out - you want other people to have all the downsides of those things in their neighborhood while you get the benefit. It's pretty sick to think that them not wanting the downsides is a problem, but you not wanting the downsides also means they have a problem. Fortunately there's a solution! Go form a YIMBY community that allows all the projects that have representatives promising benefits, and prove that the NIMBYs are all wrong. I'm 100% certain it will make you way happier.
> What's your plan to solve income inequality?
Well part of it starts by not giving giant companies with lots of money even more money in the form of tax breaks, extra access to government, and the ability to use eminent domain for their profit. All these thing grow income inequality.
You wouldn’t want to live next to a data center because of income inequality? Or you would want to live by one because you think data centers cut checks to townspeople?
If they make the communities enough money the community will be happier to let them be built. Try increasing that amount and offering it up front, maybe.
I would support that. Companies should do that. Sometimes communities disagree, obviously. Communities that really don't want them often succeed. That's why the administration is throwing such a fit.
I don't support that. The administration is the worst advocate for AI because they are so clearly corrupt. If local people pursue their economic self interest at the end of the day that's their right. This whole nimby thing was a diversion from my point about knowledge workers turning on AI. Perhaps I should have just ignored that comment.
If people want to stop a local data center then fine. I think it's bad national politics. But if it's helping these companies make better deals or find better places to go then good. What I object to is the doomerism about it, and the uncritical conflation of self interest with civic virtue or robust public policy.
Sure? I would be completely fine with a data center next door assuming it's a normal one and not something like xAI's. There are several not too far from me already.
In general, you're right. They are just buildings that sit there emitting hot air.
However these AI ones are being built with all expenses spared. That's why they come with on-site electricity generation that is loud enough to keep the whole town awake at night and pollutes enough to give them all permanent asthma.
If you don't like it there, trade with someone who is in a town with a datacenter and is unhappy that the datacenter is there! Or maybe convince more YIMBY types to move into your city and get the datacenter back.
I understand you're disappointed that people had the ability to choose things in their lives and didn't choose the thing you wanted. You can still do plenty to get the datacenters right across the street from you - sometimes in this world you have to work for the outcomes you want. IDK if it's fair or not, but it is how it seems to work out.
Nobody is building datacenters directly across a house. This kind of ridiculous exaggeration doesn't help. And I'd happily live in a town or place near one.
You linked to a data center that was a bitcoin mining operation and is explicitly having noise abatement being applied before being brought back online as an AI one?
That doesn’t support any argument against new builds nor does it support the notion that they are inherently noisy.
Also, in reply to your further up NIMBY nonsense suggesting I move.
I don’t think you understand how people operate. I like my small city and am upset idiots spread fear and harmed its prospects that we will pay for with continued anemic local employment, poorly budgeted infrastructure, etc.
I want to see good things here. I’m not just going to give up on it and go to some city that has its shit together on the business side.
Datacenters have been around for decades and the Dulles Tech Corridor, the ones around Portland, the SIX in Seattle, etc all have shown they can operate just fine.
> I understand you're disappointed that people had the ability to choose things in their lives and didn't choose the thing you wanted
No, I’m disappointed they did it based on ignorance and propaganda. There was no informed decision making going on. This is no different than people who voted against gay marriage because they thought their god would seek retribution through calamities.
> You linked to a data center that was a bitcoin mining operation
This is a good point. Was it a data center across the street from somebody’s house when it was mining Bitcoin? Yes. Will it still be a data center across the street from somebody’s house when it reopens as an ai data center? Also yes
Research pilot programs are always much more expensive than the comercialized version will be. The money is used to work out kinks, do a bunch of engineering, discover and account for unexpected issues, and so on. A lot of the work done on there is reusable to make the scaled version cheaper. Further, once the design is settled, economies of scale factor in and you get a much cheaper unit price.
According to my searches, steel production is something like 6-8 MWh/ton to extract, refine, and shape. A solar panel lasts 25 years at up to 80% effiency. This thing produces 1.7MW at peak. so call it 3 MWh/day average to account for a lot of adverse conditions over the lifetime. Thats 27000 MWh... so unless we are looking at more than 3000 tons of steel (we aren't) the steel production is accounted for. A panel takes something like 1.9 MWh equivalent in energy.... and again we aren't looking at 13K solar panels in this pilot.
So yes, in fact this does generate far more energy than goes into its production.
reply