NotoriousFSU

All this talking is exhausting. Listening to talkers makes me thirsty…and hungry…for battles.

What’s tough is a modern American woman (3-6) would opt for a complete piece of shite that’s unemployed, abusive, disloyal and treats her like dirt over someone like yourself, but only if he’s a 7 or above. Thats their problem. You don’t want to get involved with that type anyways. Find yourself a woman who appreciates you and can cook. Have you tried visiting a poor country in Asia?

Idk if it falls under what you’re looking for but Uncut Gems is a wild ride. Beyond that I’d say Collateral, Phone Booth and Sicario.

She ain’t wrong about the approach to teaching history in schools. Reminds me of a world history course I took in college and how the professor graded papers. Most of our assignments were essay format. Professor was woke but I wasn’t familiar with what exactly that entailed at the time. I soon figured it out tho. Learned that my submissions could be 10% factual and 90% gibberish as long as the narrative was “whitey is evil”. Got an A purely from appeasing her wokeness through bullshite.

Please bury this in the back of the net.

So are they admitting 90% of majors are a scam since the government got involved in student loans? Convincing financially illiterate young people to take on tens of thousands of dollars of debt for a worthless degree before they’ve ever held a real job and had to support themselves.

Wasn’t making the statement you think I was. Just making an observation.

She’s so fine

I’m not arguing that every data center in every jurisdiction receives identical tax breaks or triggers the same grid and water impacts. I’m arguing that, in the typical hyperscale build-out, the operator gets a long-duration private asset, while a material share of the supporting costs and risks are carried on the public side of the ledger. That’s not an assumption, it’s how these deals are intentionally structured: states compete with sales/property tax abatements, discounted electricity, and infrastructure support, and utilities and federal programs fund grid upgrades to accommodate large new loads.

From a finance perspective, the data center is a high-value, depreciable asset generating recurring cash flows for the firm. The necessary supporting investments—higher-capacity transmission, substations, water sourcing, road access, and often tax expenditures—are spread across ratepayers and taxpayers as long-run obligations. The Department of Energy and state incentive reports explicitly recognize data centers as major drivers of new grid spending, with programs designed to ensure residential and small commercial customers don’t see sharp rate hikes, which is an indirect admission that the public would otherwise absorb those costs.

So I’m not saying “every facility everywhere is identical,” I’m saying the model relies on public systems—power, water, land use, and fiscal incentives—to make these private assets viable at the scale and speed Big Tech wants. That’s the mechanism by which costs and risks are shifted. If someone wants to claim that this isn’t the rule but the exception, the burden is on them to show, for a meaningful sample of projects, that host communities come out net positive after accounting for tax expenditures, grid and water investments, and long-term labor impacts, not just initial construction jobs and headline investment numbers.

Pointing out that large data centers rely on public resources and incentives, while local communities bear most of the environmental and social risk, isn’t an unfair generalization—it’s a description of how the model works. If there are exceptions, they should be able to show hard evidence that they’ve actually avoided shifting those costs onto the public.

That Skeletor bitch from Wicked.