this post was submitted on 03 Apr 2026
424 points (99.1% liked)

Technology

83502 readers
1987 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. 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.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
424
Half of planned US data center builds have been delayed or canceled, growth limited by shortages of power infrastructure and parts from China — the AI build-out flips the breakers (www.tomshardware.com)
submitted 3 days ago by commander@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
70 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

The CHIPs act also favored union work and even funneled some money to worker owned shops.

It overwhelmingly favored Intel, for better or worse. And the early influx of cash did nothing to prevent Intel from axing 15,000 jobs.

I'm not here to praise Trump for any of his trade policies. But what Biden pitched through the CHIPs Act was largely a bailout for under-performing domestic producers more focused on dividends than scaled production or R&D. He'd have been better off nationalizing Intel than just handing them bricks of cash in the form of grants and low-interest loans. That is (kinda) what Trump ended up doing when he ordered the Treasury to take a 10% stake in the firm.

[–] fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 hours ago

Honestly. I agree. A big issue the US has with "industrial policy" type of deals in general is this. Big businesses can afford to have specialists to get access to programs and programs can "accomplish" their budgets goals faster with these bigger deals. The COVID small business loans had the same issue.

Also supply side money funnels are popular with donors/lobbyists (for obvious reasons) but are almost always garbage. Demand side (upfront funding for some needed thing, and payments for fulfillment) are still possible for to fuck up but do WAY better.