this post was submitted on 28 Jan 2026
161 points (97.6% liked)
Technology
79675 readers
4465 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't see any company jumping at the rim to implement these though, especially considering the high chance that it will just be overturned next party flip. Stuff like this needs bi-partisanship and transparency otherwise it just gets revoked when the party flips again.
it's a waste of money until it's clear both primary parties agree with the change, the fact it had to be done in silent/under the table says everything about the volatility of this change.
It's for data centers so they can have their own roughshod nuclear power plants.
Companies may very well jump at the opportunity. Make a contract with the US government, with revocation cost paid in case of cancellation or regulation/contract basis changes written into it.
Like how a German minister contracted companies to implement the PKW Maut (Autobahn car fee), which was designed in a way criticized for probably violating EU law. And EU courts later ruled it to be in violation. The companies received 243 million €. (DE Wikipedia)
They aren't a waste of money if investors can assume that there won't be party changes in the future.