From the rCLonly in the USArCY file: an electricity supply company has decided that it is not profitable enough to continue serving any
residential customers at all, and is abandoning all of its ones so it
can concentrate entirely on feeding the much more profitable AI-server
market <https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/05/energy-supplier-abandons-lake-tahoe-residents-to-serve-data-centers/>.
From the rCLonly in the USArCY file: an electricity supply company has decided that it is not profitable enough to continue serving any
residential customers at all, and is abandoning all of its ones so it
can concentrate entirely on feeding the much more profitable AI-server
market <https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/05/energy-supplier-abandons-lake-tahoe-residents-to-serve-data-centers/>.
On 15/05/2026 12:53 AM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
From the rCLonly in the USArCY file: an
electricity supply company has decided that
it is not profitable enough to continue
serving any residential customers at all,
and is abandoning all of its ones so it can
concentrate entirely on feeding the much more
profitable AI-server market
<https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/05/energy-supplier-abandons-lake-tahoe-residents-to-serve-data-centers/>.
Good move. People should sleep at home. No
electricity needed. Work and sleep. They can
charge their iphones at work for small monthly
payment.
Lawrence DrCOOliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
From the rCLonly in the USArCY file: an
electricity supply company has decided that
it is not profitable enough to continue
serving any residential customers at all,
and is abandoning all of its ones so it can
concentrate entirely on feeding the much more
profitable AI-server market
<https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/05/energy-supplier-abandons-lake-tahoe-residents-to-serve-data-centers/>.
Capitalism is working exactly as intended.
On 2026-05-15, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
Lawrence DrCOOliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
From the rCLonly in the USArCY file: an electricity supply company has
decided that it is not profitable enough to continue serving any
residential customers at all, and is abandoning all of its ones so
it can concentrate entirely on feeding the much more profitable
AI-server market
<https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/05/energy-supplier-abandons-lake-tahoe-residents-to-serve-data-centers/>.
Capitalism is working exactly as intended.
I come across a statement like that from time to time, but for the
life of me can't see capitalism as something *intended*. Doesn't
"intended" imply someone sets out to make something happen? But isn't capitalism actually simply an emergent property of people being
people?
The way you put it, it's as though you think one or more people sat
down and said to each other, "Hey! Let's create capitalism!" But when
was that? Who were the creators?
To me capitalism looks more like people attempting to do what they
consider in their best interests, followed by some people imagining
there being some real thing or force ("capitalism") driving the
situation.
The transactional view of everything it imposed from the top.
oldernow <oldernow@dev.null> writes:
On 2026-05-15, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
Lawrence DrCOOliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
From the rCLonly in the USArCY file: an electricity supply company has >>>> decided that it is not profitable enough to continue serving any
residential customers at all, and is abandoning all of its ones so
it can concentrate entirely on feeding the much more profitable
AI-server market
<https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/05/energy-supplier-abandons-lake-tahoe-residents-to-serve-data-centers/>.
Capitalism is working exactly as intended.
I come across a statement like that from time
to time, but for the life of me can't see
capitalism as something *intended*. Doesn't
"intended" imply someone sets out to make
something happen? But isn't capitalism actually
simply an emergent property of people being
people?
The way you put it, it's as though you think
one or more people sat down and said to each
other, "Hey! Let's create capitalism!" But
when was that? Who were the creators?
To me capitalism looks more like people
attempting to do what they consider in
their best interests, followed by some people
imagining there being some real thing or force
("capitalism") driving the situation.
In the UK in the not so distant past, the
energy was supplied by a government owned
organisation. It was privatised and split
up. This was a deliberate intentional act to
introduce market forces. It didn't work very
well in my opinion, but there is nothing
natural about it. People being people, if
your neighbour asks you for a wheel barrow
to you sell it to him? rent it to him? no,
you let him borrow it. That is people being
people. The transactional view of everything
it imposed from the top.
On 15/05/2026 2:50 PM, Richmond wrote:
The transactional view of everything it imposed
from the top.
Reptilians, Illuminati, lizards. People are
innocent!
On 2026-05-15, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
oldernow <oldernow@dev.null> writes:
On 2026-05-15, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
Lawrence DrCOOliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
From the rCLonly in the USArCY file: an electricity supply company has >>>>> decided that it is not profitable enough to continue serving any
residential customers at all, and is abandoning all of its ones so
it can concentrate entirely on feeding the much more profitable
AI-server market
<https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/05/energy-supplier-abandons-lake-tahoe-residents-to-serve-data-centers/>.
Capitalism is working exactly as intended.
I come across a statement like that from time to time, but for the
life of me can't see capitalism as something *intended*. Doesn't
"intended" imply someone sets out to make something happen? But
isn't capitalism actually simply an emergent property of people
being people?
The way you put it, it's as though you think one or more people sat
down and said to each other, "Hey! Let's create capitalism!" But
when was that? Who were the creators?
To me capitalism looks more like people attempting to do what they
consider in their best interests, followed by some people imagining
there being some real thing or force ("capitalism") driving the
situation.
In the UK in the not so distant past, the energy was supplied by a
government owned organisation. It was privatised and split up. This
was a deliberate intentional act to introduce market forces. It
didn't work very well in my opinion, but there is nothing natural
about it. People being people, if your neighbour asks you for a wheel
barrow to you sell it to him? rent it to him? no, you let him borrow
it. That is people being people. The transactional view of everything
it imposed from the top.
Okay... but isn't your UK example different
than capitalism because there is clearly
and act to affect the market, whereas in
the case of capitalism it's rather the
opposite, i.e. the act of not acting
to affect the market? Said that way
makes it look as though not acting
is a form of acting, but my
initial reply considered
not acting, well, *not*
acting. :-)
How did the energy company come to own the energy in the first place?
e.g. English enclosures (15thrCo18th centuries), where common land was
seized and converted to private property, dispossessing peasants and
creating a landless labour force. Without people forced to sell their
laboor, wage-labor capitalism couldn't function.
What is a corporation? Something declared to exist and have rights by law(yers).
oldernow <oldernow@dev.null> writes:
On 2026-05-15, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
oldernow <oldernow@dev.null> writes:
On 2026-05-15, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
Lawrence DrCOOliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
From the rCLonly in the USArCY file: an
electricity supply company has decided that
it is not profitable enough to continue
serving any residential customers at all,
and is abandoning all of its ones so it
can concentrate entirely on feeding the
much more profitable AI-server market
<https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/05/energy-supplier-abandons-lake-tahoe-residents-to-serve-data-centers/>.
Capitalism is working exactly as intended.
I come across a statement like that from time
to time, but for the life of me can't see
capitalism as something *intended*. Doesn't
"intended" imply someone sets out to make
something happen? But isn't capitalism
actually simply an emergent property of
people being people?
The way you put it, it's as though you think
one or more people sat down and said to each
other, "Hey! Let's create capitalism!" But
when was that? Who were the creators?
To me capitalism looks more like people
attempting to do what they consider in their
best interests, followed by some people
imagining there being some real thing or
force ("capitalism") driving the situation.
In the UK in the not so distant past, the
energy was supplied by a government owned
organisation. It was privatised and split
up. This was a deliberate intentional act to
introduce market forces. It didn't work very
well in my opinion, but there is nothing
natural about it. People being people, if
your neighbour asks you for a wheel barrow
to you sell it to him? rent it to him? no,
you let him borrow it. That is people being
people. The transactional view of everything
it imposed from the top.
Okay... but isn't your UK example different
than capitalism because there is clearly
and act to affect the market, whereas in
the case of capitalism it's rather the
opposite, i.e. the act of not acting
to affect the market? Said that way
makes it look as though not acting
is a form of acting, but my
initial reply considered
not acting, well, *not*
acting. :-)
How did the energy company come to own the
energy in the first place? e.g. English
enclosures (15thrCo18th centuries), where
common land was seized and converted to private
property, dispossessing peasants and creating
a landless labour force. Without people forced
to sell their laboor, wage-labor capitalism
couldn't function.
Capitalism is working exactly as intended.
What is a corporation? Something declared to
exist and have rights by law(yers).
In the UK in the not so distant past, the energy was supplied by a
government owned organisation. It was privatised and split up. This
was a deliberate intentional act to introduce market forces. It
didn't work very well in my opinion, but there is nothing natural
about it.
opposite, i.e. the act of not acting
to affect the market?
oldernow <oldernow@dev.null> writes:
opposite, i.e. the act of not acting
to affect the market?
I was responding to this.
outside its original context.
oldernow <oldernow@dev.null> writes:
outside its original context.
The original response is still there on the
server if you wish to look at it.
On 2026-05-16, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
oldernow <oldernow@dev.null> writes:
outside its original context.
The original response is still there on the
server if you wish to look at it.
Yeah. Too much effort for what it's worth to me
at this point, all other life things considered.
oldernow <oldernow@dev.null> writes:
On 2026-05-16, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
oldernow <oldernow@dev.null> writes:
outside its original context.
The original response is still there on the
server if you wish to look at it.
Yeah. Too much effort for what it's worth to me
at this point, all other life things considered.
I know that feeling. But I am glad to know you
got over your spell of solipsism.
On 2026-05-16, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
oldernow <oldernow@dev.null> writes:
On 2026-05-16, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
oldernow <oldernow@dev.null> writes:
outside its original context.
The original response is still there on the server if you wish to
look at it.
Yeah. Too much effort for what it's worth to me at this point, all
other life things considered.
I know that feeling. But I am glad to know you got over your spell of
solipsism.
I can see how it might look that way.
But the impetus to post does seem to occur in what seems in a spell of
sorts. The need just suddenly kicks up like a cloud of dust, an itch
in need of scratching. And then sometimes it suddenly feels
meaningless in the middle of scratching.
But that's not too different from any pursuit, really. I see my wife
suddenly in the grip of some obsession, and feel above such... but
next thing I know I'm in the middle of some ridiculous reply.
Ugh....
But what I keep coming back to is that I really, really do love
typing. But I usually have little reason to type much anymore. But
then USENET comes to the rescue with the aforementioned dust storms.
My fingertips thank you, USENET!
oldernow <oldernow@dev.null> writes:
On 2026-05-16, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
oldernow <oldernow@dev.null> writes:
On 2026-05-16, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
oldernow <oldernow@dev.null> writes:
outside its original context.
The original response is still there on the
server if you wish to look at it.
Yeah. Too much effort for what it's worth
to me at this point, all other life things
considered.
I know that feeling. But I am glad to know
you got over your spell of solipsism.
I can see how it might look that way.
But the impetus to post does seem to occur in
what seems in a spell of sorts. The need just
suddenly kicks up like a cloud of dust, an
itch in need of scratching. And then sometimes
it suddenly feels meaningless in the middle
of scratching.
But that's not too different from any pursuit,
really. I see my wife suddenly in the grip of
some obsession, and feel above such... but
next thing I know I'm in the middle of some
ridiculous reply.
Ugh....
But what I keep coming back to is that I
really, really do love typing. But I usually
have little reason to type much anymore. But
then USENET comes to the rescue with the
aforementioned dust storms.
My fingertips thank you, USENET!
With Gnus, going back to the previous article
is just a matter of typing ^. With your love
of typing it should be no effort.
You went to considerably more effort to explain
your battle with solipsism.
Perhaps you should upgrade Slrn?
There are ways to do it. Here in NZ, there was an enforced separation
between the owners of the generation facilities and the retailers who
sell to end users like you and me. This lowered the barriers for new
entrants to the retail market. And also for new entrants to the
generation side as well.
We have a similar separation in Internet services.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 65 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 00:51:23 |
| Calls: | 862 |
| Files: | 1,311 |
| D/L today: |
10 files (20,373K bytes) |
| Messages: | 264,186 |