Norway Company Can't Produce Ukraine Ammunition Because of TikTok (theguardian.com) 258
quonset writes: In what has to be one of the most inconceivable confluences ever, the Norwegian company Nammo says it is unable to expand its production of artillery shells to support Ukraine because of "cat videos" on TikTok. To placate European scrutiny, TikTok is opening two data centers in Europe to house European user data locally. One of those data centers is in the Hamar region of Norway. Because of this expansion, there is no excess capacity for the factory to ramp up production of artillery shells.
"The chief executive of Nammo, which is co-owned by the Norwegian government, said a planned expansion of its largest factory in central Norway hit a roadblock due to a lack of surplus energy, with the construction of TikTok's new data centre using up electricity in the local area," reports the Guardian. "Elvia, the local energy provider, confirmed to the Financial Times that the electricity network had no spare capacity after allocating it to the data center on a first-come, first-served basis. Additional capacity would take time to become available." "We are concerned because we see our future growth is challenged by the storage of cat videos," Morten Brandtzaeg told the Financial Times.
"The chief executive of Nammo, which is co-owned by the Norwegian government, said a planned expansion of its largest factory in central Norway hit a roadblock due to a lack of surplus energy, with the construction of TikTok's new data centre using up electricity in the local area," reports the Guardian. "Elvia, the local energy provider, confirmed to the Financial Times that the electricity network had no spare capacity after allocating it to the data center on a first-come, first-served basis. Additional capacity would take time to become available." "We are concerned because we see our future growth is challenged by the storage of cat videos," Morten Brandtzaeg told the Financial Times.
Nothing will loss... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the plan? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Better yet, make sure that Tic Tok users are notified that the Russian invasion of Ukraine is the reason that the service is shut down in their region. It would probably help to mobilize support from a new and unexpected group of people! I can see the "Russian army advance halted by Internet prankster" headlines now!
Re:Nothing will loss... (Score:4, Funny)
The mental flow chart has to be causing meltdowns.
Re:Nothing will loss... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Nothing will loss... (Score:5, Insightful)
A lot of it is hydroelectric power,
Yeah, over 90% electric.
Combine that lucky geography and low population density with vast fossil resources that are actually managed well by a functioning government to the benefit of the general populace.
Still, it's not always useful to point to Norway as an example of how to do things. Preconditions matter a lot, and Norway is lucky in that sense (though that is only a necessary ccondition, not a sufficient one!)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
The less government interference, AKA regulations, the better, and when there is no interference at all, available power is infinite.
Why the communists in America have not figured out that this is as gawd intended, is all answered on Hunter Biden's laptop.
Re: (Score:2)
Would you like to discuss how the perversion of the Texas energy market was caused by the massive govt. subsidization of renewable energy sources, and how it was only possible to implement with natural gas turbines spinning up and down to pick up the slack when needed, so T. Boone Pickens cornered the energy market in that regard? Or how it was only the utter lack of wind and solar power combined with the massive increase in energy usage from the freeze which caused a large enough pressure drop in the nat g
Re: (Score:3)
And I hear quite a few natural gas pumps were on the 'cut early for compensation' list as well.
Re: (Score:3)
Simple logistics.
a) divert some existing production
b) use it to shell the TikTok datacenter
c) replace what you diverted with the newly increased shell production
Re: (Score:3)
The energy provider, Elvia, would lose credibility if it stops existing contracts on a whim. Who will trust them in the future? Sure there has to be a solution... this sounds more like an excuse.
Re:Nothing will loss... (Score:5, Insightful)
Unplug TikTok, and produce the ammo. Nothing of use will be loss. Trust me on this...
Nothing of use? How about: public trust that contracts (like the one for electricity signed by TikTok) will be upheld by the state, regardless of political sympathies of parties involved, and not randomly cancelled oh just "because fuck you, that's why", like in a banana republic?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Humans are not nothing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Or, here's a crazy thought -- Russia just needs to get out of Ukraine, including Crimea, and leave them alone. Ukraine has every right to defend themselves against an aggressor nation.
Cool. And while we're talking wishes, I want a unicorn for a ride in my daily commute. Now, got any idea on how to stop this mess that has more than a snowball's chance in hell of actually happening?
Re:Humans are not nothing (Score:5, Informative)
Uhh, yeah it will. If Russia leaves Ukraine, the war stops. Ukraine has zero interest in expanding its borders into Russia.
Re:Humans are not nothing (Score:5, Insightful)
Uhh, yeah it will. If Russia leaves Ukraine, the war stops. Ukraine has zero interest in expanding its borders into Russia.
Not necessarily. If Ukraine manages to push russkie soliders out, I still don't see russkies stopping their bombing, missile strikes, and preparing for yet another offensive without a regime change, and it doesn't look like one is about to happen.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Humans are not nothing (Score:5, Insightful)
Appeasement of an aggressive invader is never the 'better way'. World war 2 happened because people like you just wanted the problem to go away, thus leading directly to the holocaust. Cowardice simply enables and encourages psychopathy.
Re:Humans are not nothing (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And Nazi Russia is defending its people from Ukraine?
Um, WTF are you talking about? Are you trying to highlight the common points of disinformation and lies spread by the authoritarian governments in Nazi Germany and modern day Russia?
Re:Humans are not nothing (Score:5, Interesting)
Russia doesn't see itself as an aggressor. They see this as simply an issue of security. And that if NATO didn't exist or didn't try to expand into Ukraine and Georgia like it did, Russia wouldn't have to take anticipatory defense.
I believe the post war Russian efforts to take over and install puppet governments in formerly free countries, kinda shows that is bullshit.
Old Joe, he wanted buffer states between Mother Russia and Western Europe.
So buffer states, he got.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Oh my, there's a lot to unpack there.
Suffice to say, the war in Ukraine has lead to more countries on Russia's doorstep asking to join Nato (or Europe) than were particularly bothered by it before. Putin's been the best Nato salesperson the world has ever known. He's successfully swayed multiple national populaces from a "meh" position to a "yeah, I think so" position - it's not even that a few governments are joining up without asking their people first - the people have lead this. You've got to hand it to
Re: (Score:3)
Suggest a better way. What would be a better way? Ukraine to surrender? Give in to an expansionist regime? Because that's the alternative. If history isn't your strong suite, we've had that before. Ask Mr. Chamberlain how well that strategy works with regimes hellbent on expansion, no matter the cost or suffering.
Re:Humans are not nothing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Increase support how? Deliver heavy weapons? Great idea, who's supposed to man them? High tech war material requires the personnel to use it, we're not talking about "this end to enemy, press here for acceleration of metal" i.e. simple assault rifles here.
Re: (Score:2)
Increase support how? Deliver heavy weapons? Great idea, who's supposed to man them? High tech war material requires the personnel to use it, we're not talking about "this end to enemy, press here for acceleration of metal" i.e. simple assault rifles here.
One, there's a ton of Western soldiers fighting for Ukraine without the official support of their home countries, who already have the training necessary. Two, it does not take 5 years of university education to learn how to drive a tank. Few months top, of intense training. Remind me, how long has that war been going on already?
Re:Humans are not nothing (Score:5, Informative)
As you might have noticed, these people don't go at the command of their country, actually, it's not unlikely that they go without their country's blessing. This can well be due to international contracts that disallows the participation in a foreign war. A lot of countries issued relevant laws when people went and joined ISIS, and these laws are still in effect. Essentially, sending weapons for these people to use would technically mean that you're providing weapons for people that your laws consider criminals. You think any government in a working democracy would survive something like this?
As you might have noticed by now, training has started and so did delivery of tanks and heavy artillery. Why so late you asked? That has historic reasons. Allow me to take you back to the 1970s. Back then, the US had a pretty considerable ally in the middle east. No, not Israel. Persia. You might know that country by the name of Iran.
Yes, no kidding, Iran was an US ally. Or, rather, the Shah of Persia was. Who used the oil profits to buy himself the fourth largest army of the world back then. And the most modern one to boot. US delivered F-14 fighter jets along with AIM-54 Phoenix'. Back then, this was bleeding edge military tech. Top of the line. And then there was a revolution and the army folded without even firing a single shot. And that bleeding edge tech fell into the hands of a sworn enemy of the US.
That trauma sits deep. Even 40 years later, US doctrine is that nobody, NOBODY, will receive any military technology that the US cannot counter easily, unless they are sufficiently certain that this kind of blunder will not repeat itself. And for a very long time, the US (and the rest of the West) had the fear that Ukraine would roll over and the military hardware they send will end up in Russian hands. My guess is that the battle over Bakhmut showed in no uncertain ways that Ukraine will not, and would rather fight to the last tooth and nail.
Yes, convincing of that took a long time. But you might want to understand the fear, the West is halfway sure that they can effectively counter the outdated Russian military hardware. But having to face their own weapons would be a very different matter.
And this time, there is no Saddam that could do it for them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How about: drastically increase support for Ukraine so the war can be ended in a month in one single decisive strike? But nooo, better to keep them on trickle, enough not to get overrun by russkies, but not enough to actually push them back. Bidet and rest of the West love their proxy wars to bleed off their enemies, and fuck the human cost.
Or there is the Republican approach, which is appeasement, allowing Russia to take over Ukraine.
Appeasment always works, look at how it completely prevented World War 2! Lord Chamberlain was a genius.
Re: (Score:2)
How about: drastically increase support for Ukraine so the war can be ended in a month in one single decisive strike? But nooo, better to keep them on trickle, enough not to get overrun by russkies, but not enough to actually push them back. Bidet and rest of the West love their proxy wars to bleed off their enemies, and fuck the human cost.
Or there is the Republican approach, which is appeasement, allowing Russia to take over Ukraine.
Appeasment always works, look at how it completely prevented World War 2! Lord Chamberlain was a genius.
Yes, my explicitly stated proposition of "drastically increase support for Ukraine" is definitely "appeasement", moron.
Re:Humans are not nothing (Score:5, Insightful)
The world avoided major fighting when Nazi Germany annexed Austria.
The world avoided major fighting when Nazi Germany annexed the Sudetenland.
The world avoided major fighting when Nazi Germany de facto annexed the rest of the Czech republic.
The world avoided major fighting when Nazi Germany annexed Klaipeda.
The world avoided major fighting when Nazi Germany annexed the free city of Danzig.
In the end, was a major war avoided?
Could a major war have been avoided if the world acted earlier?
Re:Humans are not nothing (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a pretty big difference between the situation in Korea and the Russia/Ukraine war. The current state of Korea is exactly as it started before the war. But freezing the conflict right now is essentially a Russian victory, as they've gained substantial territory for all that blood, including a very strategic naval port in Crimea and now a land bridge to it.
How about we let Ukraine decide if the casualties are too much burden to bear, given that they're the clear victims here, at least from a western perspective? They seem to want to fight to retake their lands. Let's give them the means to do so, and send a message to the world that naked aggression won't be rewarded.
Giving into bullies has, historically speaking, led to even greater numbers of deaths and human suffering. Most Europeans well understand this fact better than most, which is why the support for Ukraine is so strong there.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a pretty big difference between the situation in Korea and the Russia/Ukraine war. The current state of Korea is exactly as it started before the war. But freezing the conflict right now is essentially a Russian victory, as they've gained substantial territory for all that blood, including a very strategic naval port in Crimea and now a land bridge to it.
How about we let Ukraine decide if the casualties are too much burden to bear, given that they're the clear victims here, at least from a western perspective? They seem to want to fight to retake their lands. Let's give them the means to do so, and send a message to the world that naked aggression won't be rewarded.
Giving into bullies has, historically speaking, led to even greater numbers of deaths and human suffering. Most Europeans well understand this fact better than most, which is why the support for Ukraine is so strong there.
LOL, what? Unless you're talking about Eastern Europe, then sure, but Western (except for British) had to be dragged kicking and screaming (and had to have their gas pipes blown up by unknown parties) to do anything more than "offering thoughts and prayers, and sending moderately strongly worded protests".
Re: (Score:2)
The current state of Korea is exactly as it started before the war.
Nope it is not.
Before the war it was conquered/occupied by Japan. And some idiots in the white house accepted it as part of Japan. So when it got "liberated", they occupied it in the German and Austrian way: every occupying force got a quarter^h^h^h^h^h half of the territory to govern.
In Germany it lead to a +50 year hegemony of the Russians in east Germany. And in Korea the north is now a pet child of China, to test how aggressive it can b
Re: Humans are not nothing (Score:2)
Funny Russia is doing those things too. Not only but anyone who says bad things about Russia mysteriously die.
Only been a couple dozen high profile Russian deaths who said Russia should stop fighting.
Re:Humans are not nothing (Score:5, Insightful)
... while european *citizens* are getting increasingly pissed with their governments propping Ukraine up with their money.
I am a European citizen, and do not object to my money being spent on supporting Ukraine's effort to push Russia out of their country. The alternative is to allow Russia's invasion to succeed and thereby to encourage further territorial aggression going into the future.
I think a mistake was made when Russia "annexed" Crimea. Allowing that act to go unchallenged encouraged Russia to believe that they would get away with coming back for another slice of Ukraine's land.
If Russia is allowed to keep the territory it has grabbed up to now then, in a few years, there will be another war when Russia comes back again for the next chunk.
Has anybody, ever stopped a bully from being a bully by handing over whatever was demanded? Appeasement is never more than a temporary solution.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
... while european *citizens* are getting increasingly pissed with their governments propping Ukraine up with their money.
I am a European citizen, and do not object to my money being spent on supporting Ukraine's effort to push Russia out of their country. The alternative is to allow Russia's invasion to succeed and thereby to encourage further territorial aggression going into the future.
I think a mistake was made when Russia "annexed" Crimea. Allowing that act to go unchallenged encouraged Russia to believe that they would get away with coming back for another slice of Ukraine's land.
If Russia is allowed to keep the territory it has grabbed up to now then, in a few years, there will be another war when Russia comes back again for the next chunk.
Has anybody, ever stopped a bully from being a bully by handing over whatever was demanded? Appeasement is never more than a temporary solution.
Appeasement never works. Indeed, old Adolph would have been pretty well shut down if they curb stomped him instead of Lord Chamberlain waving that pice of paper around like it was nude pix of some political enemy's wife. Germany wasn't all that strong at that moment.
We must remember that Putin might be president, but he is also KGB, and at base, an old school communist wearing Oligarch's clothing. Given the Russian actions after WW2, it is pretty certain he is trying to fulfill some old school squad goal
Re: (Score:2)
You *do* know that this is exactly the rationale on the Russian side of the equation? The bully being NATO, who, after giving assurances of not actually spreading east, has repeatedly done so, now with the idea of making post-2014 Ukraine some manner of a military bulwark with missiles pointed right at Moscow with couple minutes' flight time.
What "assurances" exactly? Any treaties you'd care to list? Or just Boris Yeltsin pinky-swearing that uhhhh... someone, don't remember who exactly but definitely was someone important, told him that at a party between his vodka shots, right before he blacked out?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This had nothing to do with Jelcin... There's an agreement from the time of Gorbacov, where James Baker promised that NATO wouldn't expand eastwards, in return for Russia's assent to German reunification. And no, there wasn't a formal treaty made of it, however, official minutes of such meetings exist - it's not on the same level as someone drunkenly promising you something at a party, like the idea you seem to have gotten.
Yes it is (on the same level), that is, zero. They were hammering out an agreement, such terms were proposed, but those particular terms did not end up in the final agreement, which very explicitly means they were rejected. Which actually makes the level even below the "vodka conversation" level - it means the terms were very explicitly proposed, considered, and very explicitly rejected as a result of this consideration, and russkies very explicitly agreed to the treaty WITHOUT those terms in it. Anything e
Re: (Score:2)
Both James Baker and Mikhail Gorbachev have since stated on the record that there was no such agreement about NATO expanding eastwards. The "not one inch eastward" quote was from an early discussion about stationing NATO troops in the former GDR and was only in the context of Germany reunification. This topic never came up again and didn't make it in to any formal agreement about reunification or any whatifs around the chance of other Warsaw Pact countries leaving the Soviet empire. You could however say
Re:Humans are not nothing (Score:5, Informative)
The bully being NATO, who, after giving assurances of not actually spreading east, has repeatedly done so
False. Stop with the lie. NATO gave no assurances that other countries wouldn't want to join [harvard.edu]. Never.
Further, you, and many others, conveniently ignore the Budapest Memorandum [harvard.edu] which stated no one would interfere, or attempt to interfere, in Ukraine's affairs after the country gave up its nuclear weapons. However, since that memorandum, Russia has repeatedly ignored it and tried to create another vassal state like it has done in Belarus.
now with the idea of making post-2014 Ukraine some manner of a military bulwark with missiles pointed right at Moscow with couple minutes' flight time.
You mean like Moscow has missiles pointed at all of Europe with a couple of minutes flight time? Here's a question to answer: why is it all these counties want to join NATO and not with Russia? What could possibly motivate them to seek out a comman alliance to protect themselves? It couldn't have anything to do with Russia invading and attacking its neighbors, could it?
Until every last Russian solder, mercenary, and volunteer is either killed, captured, or driven off Ukrainian soil, Ukraine has every right, and obligation, to do what it takes to secure its borders. If you or others think otherwise, then we should follow the example of Russia which rolled over when it was invaded by Germany decades ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Quite to the contrary, plenty, even American mainstream sources [latimes.com] point out that James Baker did indeed give such assurances, so maybe Zoellick should stop lying through his teeth about meetings there are still minutes of. Besides that, his version doesn't pass elementary logical consideration since his claim boils down to "yeah, USSR assented to German reunification asking for nothing in return" which is on the level of a thief trying to claim that yes, the grandma on the metro station really gifted him her wallet.
Awwwww, pwwoor cwommie failing stwate twat didn't have the stwength to stop its own pweople from teawwing it apawrt in a few years also did not manage to stop other sowwereign countwies from decidwing tweir own fate, and had to in essewnce asswent to giwwing up swome if itws occupied tewwitowy to you know, the pweopwe who live thewe, in a errrr... "slanted" twweaty, let me play a sad song on the world's tiniest violin for them!
Er, what? Russia hasn't "created" a vassal state in Belarus first of all - what actually happened was that Lukashenko was drawing away from Russia in pursuit of western economic opportunities, got a 'colour revolution' for the trouble that he barely weathered through, and came back to Putin, begging.
Awwww, pwoor dictwatwor almost got owwewthwown by his own peowple, let me play a
Re: (Score:2)
No it doesn't, it doesn't say that at all. It says that James Baker made a "suggestion" about an idea **early** in the negotiations. That idea didn't even last three weeks. It was never discuss again and it didn't make it in to the agreement. Negotiations always have ideas and suggestions along the way that often don't make it in to the final agreement or treaty. A sug
Re: (Score:2)
Your whole argument is stupid. NATO isn't a country, it isn't spreading across anything. It's an alliance, and its real design purpose was to contain Russia from the start. Not to invade it, because who the fuck wants Russia? Its only exports are some wheat (which is threatened by AGW) and fossil fuels that we need to stop burning anyway, and of course shitty outdated military vehicles.
Vlad's invasion of Ukraine is proof positive that containment of Russia is valid.
Re: (Score:2)
Beyond that... the goal is not just to contain Russia but to partition it into fragmentary states that would both be permanently defanged as an international power, and allow for convenient looting. This Atlantic article demonstrates this line of thinking is alive and well, as [theatlantic.com]
Re: (Score:2)
What you're describing is a glorious self-fulfilling prophecy
Nonsense. Russia has frequently been expansionist and Vlad has always been a bastard, and preventing Russia from invading its neighbors is the only rational plan since invading it is daft.
Re: (Score:2)
This is utter bullshit. Are you a Russian troll? Most of the time we don't give a fuck about Russia. It's just when it's misbehaviour comes too close to home that we get annoyed and push back.
Re: (Score:2)
Your whole argument is stupid. NATO isn't a country, it isn't spreading across anything. It's an alliance, and its real design purpose was to contain Russia from the start. Not to invade it, because who the fuck wants Russia? Its only exports are some wheat (which is threatened by AGW) and fossil fuels that we need to stop burning anyway, and of course shitty outdated military vehicles.
Vlad's invasion of Ukraine is proof positive that containment of Russia is valid.
Who the fuck wants Russia?! I want it, to keep them down mostly, and keep them from invading my country next, pretty much everyone wants it for its natural resources. It's a complete fantasy and out of reach, but don't pretend that if Russia's sovereignty was realistically up for grabs noone would want it as his own puppet state to be exploited.
Re: (Score:2)
You *do* know that this is exactly the rationale on the Russian side of the equation? The bully being NATO, who, after giving assurances of not actually spreading east, has repeatedly done so, now with the idea of making post-2014 Ukraine some manner of a military bulwark with missiles pointed right at Moscow with couple minutes' flight time.
I see - NATO came in and forced a NATO government on all those states.
Now justify the rapid takeover of the neighboring countries like Poland, Bulgaria, Albania, Hungary, and Albania, as well as East Germany and blockading the US, French and British Sectors of Berlin in 1945 to 1948. NATO was formed in 1949.
I take it you wanted the Soviet expansion to continue unabated, and those NATO peopple were just too aggressive, in stopping you.
Re: (Score:2)
Ukraine has wanted peace negotiations all the way back in last March... then Boris Johnson visited, loudly (as if he ever does things another way) pointing out that the West is 'not ready for peace' and in general torpedoing the whole process. Since then, there have been a few tens of thousands of casualties, and Ukraine has lost even more territory. Hiding behind their decisionmaking *now* is the peak of disingenuousness, but then, disingenuousness is the name of the game since the beginning of the war. Also, I wouldn't rush to operate with 'most Europeans', since taking aside a small handful of nations like Poland and Latvia, the general pattern is more like european *politicians* strongly support Ukraine while european *citizens* are getting increasingly pissed with their governments propping Ukraine up with their money.
Both sides declare readiness for "peace process", and both sides by that mean they would be willing to consider accepting total and unconditional surrender of the other side. Boris Johnsson changed nothing in that respect.
Re: (Score:2)
The version you're mentioning is the one that came about *after* Johnson's visit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
while european *citizens* are getting increasingly pissed with their governments propping Ukraine up with their money.
That is actually not the case.
There is an overwhelming wide support for Ukraine, especially in private help/housing for refugees.
For some reasons they like to help Ukrainians but hate to help Syrians ... must be some weird psychology thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For some reasons they like to help Ukrainians but hate to help Syrians ... must be some weird psychology thing.
Let me explain it to you, because it must indeed be a mystery for brainwashed leftists. I support war refugees coming on war refugee terms, with aid and shelter offered, paid for from my taxes. I support economic migrants coming as economic migrants, i.e. "hey, you're perfectly welcome to work and pay taxes here, whatever living you rent is yours, but we're definitely not paying you for the privilege of your visit. Oh, and if you do crime or try to evade taxes, you get booted".
Ukrainians are war refugees,
Re:Humans are not nothing (Score:5, Insightful)
The conflict ends instantly if the aggressor removes its troops from the country it invaded.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The civil war was started by Russia and separatists. Regular Russian soldiers were involved there from day 1, 2014. Putin claims there were just soldiers on holiday but you can't believe Putin. Putin even said there were no Russians taking over Crimea, but no one believed him, and then Putin later admitted they were Russian and said haha you were dumb to believe me (which no one actually believed anyway). So if Putin says no Russians help in Donbass there is no reason to believe him in the face of evide
That's a new one (Score:4, Funny)
And the Nobel peace prize goes to.... TikTik?
inconceivable (Score:3)
In what has to be one of the most inconceivable confluences ever,
Do they even know what that word means?
Re:inconceivable (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
No more rhymes! I MEAN it!
Re: inconceivable (Score:5, Funny)
You killed my cat videos. Prepare to die.
Re: (Score:2)
Do they even know what that word means?
Indeed. Unlikely though the situation is, it's not a shitty cloud-based Wiki.
Re: (Score:2)
I think they know exactly what the word means, which is why they chose to use it.
get an judge to shutdown the data center now! (Score:3)
get an judge to shutdown the data center now!
Re: (Score:2)
And on what legal base would:
a) would anyone be able to make a cause in court?
b) would a judge rule in favour for shutting it down?
Just wondering about your logic how a "state of law" is working.
Re: (Score:2)
He's a megalomaniac, but I doubt he's stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
He's a megalomaniac, but I doubt he's stupid.
Oh that he is, just possibly not THAT stupid.
Poor utility planning (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
They are not blaming TikTok.
They only mention that there is a new data center build, for Tiktok, and that there is not enough power left for themselves.
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds like the artillery company should have either had an agreement in place to reserve power if they needed to expand or the country should have some military exemption to the "first come first served" utility distribution system in place ahead of time.
Except what you're talking about is a private company currently without any national security relevance. You don't give military exceptions to random companies. They are not supplying the local military, Norway isn't strategically suffering. There's no basis for this company specifically right now based in that country to get special consideration.
As for planning, I don't think you quite understand the what-if scenario here. Munitions companies like this exist to arm a country to fend off an attack. They do
Re: (Score:2)
Wonder if they could STOP the justification for more bloodletting and a need for manufacturing death? Funny how that's never a consideration.
The artillery shells are needed to stop that justification, because the justification is a rampaging, rapine army, led by a madman.
increase prices (Score:3)
make TikTok and NATO compete for electricity.
Oh that's quite simple (Score:2)
National security requisition: unplug TikTok.
And the chatbots shall lead them (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They're talking contractual issues here. The data center has a contract to use the power from Elvia on a first-come, first-supplied basis, but almost every contract has a "war clause" built in where war-time needs preempt contractual agreements.
The only thing really left out of the summary is whether the government wants to invoke a "national security" or war clause to divert more energy to making needed ammunition and pay the contract fine.
Re: (Score:2)
but almost every contract has a "war clause" built in where war-time needs preempt contractual agreements.
Just lol.
No: there is no contract with a war clause.
If war is an issue, the government can change/influence things. Most certainly there is no contract clause.
Really? (Score:2)
Make TikTok, not war (Score:2)
Seriously. if this was a few years earlier, they would have said all the crypto miners are to blame, or the Teslas. There are always excuses.
New cold war conspiracy theory (Score:2)
Why blame TikTok's and not EU? (Score:2)
Full disclosure, I am not a fan of TikTok, but in this case, clearly something forced on them.
Re: (Score:2)
Irrelevant. Norway is not now, and never has been, a member of the EU.
Yeah - that surprises a lot of non-Norwegians. They had a referendum about it in the late 1990s. Decided that the trade relationships were acceptable (they are members of the European Single Market), but they didn't want to lower their social standards to those of the average EU country.
Norwegians like to travel across the North Sea to cheap, poverty-stricken, holiday destinations like Britain, but they certainly don
National Security Anyone? (Score:2)
C'mon even peaceful Norway must have some way to overrule contracts in the name of national security.
Ridiculous (Score:2)
This is the most ridiculous excuse I ever saw. So the energy provider is booked 100% and has no operational margin with a reserve in the case some incident happens? The ammo factory can increase production overnight, they only need energy, no factory space, no workers, no raw materials? The energy grid in Norway is not connected so when a provider can't supply enough, others can't step in? The energy grids in whole Europe are not connected so you can't import from other countries? What a lot of bull.
Re: (Score:2)
So the energy provider is booked 100% and has no operational margin with a reserve in the case some incident happens?
It has reserves, but those would be gone if they where booked and supplied. (* facepalm *)
The ammo factory can increase production overnight, they only need energy, no factory space, no workers, no raw materials?
No. Did you read the summary? The bottleneck is energy, not working an extra #4 night shift.
The energy grids in whole Europe are not connected so you can't import from other countri
Re: (Score:2)
Norway as a country can. But the local grid probably can't.
This is exactly what is happening. To quote another article [forbes.com]:
The local energy provider, Elvia, suggested that it would take a good amount of time—years—to strengthen the electrical transmission network
So it seems the issue is more with the local grid, and having two geographically-close energy consumers which need a lot of electricity at the same time.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the most ridiculous excuse I ever saw. So the energy provider is booked 100% and has no operational margin with a reserve in the case some incident happens?
Incidents don't increase energy consumption, they reduce it, as consumers become unable to consume.
It's not unheard of for capacity to be fully booked. Here in Humboldt county, CA you can't even get a permit to build anything new because there's no power. They tried to get offshore wind in here like a decade ago and they stopped it in order to preserve their view. It's happening now, though, and I guarantee they will learn nothing from this experience. They could have built a freeway bypass decades ago too,
Re: (Score:2)
This is the most ridiculous excuse I ever saw. So the energy provider is booked 100% and has no operational margin with a reserve in the case some incident happens? The ammo factory can increase production overnight, they only need energy, no factory space, no workers, no raw materials? The energy grid in Norway is not connected so when a provider can't supply enough, others can't step in? The energy grids in whole Europe are not connected so you can't import from other countries? What a lot of bull.
Most importantly, yeah, sure "Ukrainians won't get artillery shells if you don't do what we say". There's plenty of arms dealers in the world, artillery shells are not some sort of high-tech thing that only they can make. So make that "booohoo, I won't get the monies for making shells for Ukraine, someone else will pocket that". But that of course doesn't look nearly as well, does it?
Fools errand (Score:2)
These local data centers are such a fools errand. As if the Internet didn't exist and it wouldn't be trivial for the Chinese government to have connections or backdoors into that data and siphon whatever they want. Nobody is going to audit those systems or check them in any way for what is happening with that data. So it might as well sit in Beijing.
Re: (Score:2)
You know there once was a hoax kind of joke of an US president who had no clue about anything.
So he called the internet the "data highway". On a highway you can count cars.
In a data center - which is connected to the world via *cables* - you can count what amount of data goes in and out. Even if it is encrypted in a magical way that you do not know to where it goes: the data is there. It is just like a car on an data/internet highway.
No idea why people are so stupid to not even come to the most basic "knowl
Make cat videos, not war (Score:2)
future growth is challenged (Score:2)
Feels like it might not be a bad thing (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That's girls?
There goes the last lingering thread of my heterosexuality...