buttmasterflex

I agree with the sentiment as well. The unfortunate part of this is people pointing fingers at Ohio EPA when the agency can only act within their legal authority. Ohio EPA cannot grant or deny a business’s ability to operate up front like that. In this scenario they can only set limits for contaminants and enforce them. If bad actors violate those limits, then they can issue violations, assess fines, and refer cases to the AG for criminal prosecution. In extreme cases they can force a company to stop operating until violations are resolved.

Yes, I work on both state and federally administrated RCRA closure and corrective action sites and state administrated CERCLA sites

Totally valid. Most of the sites I work on, the contamination happened before regulations were written. Chlorinated solvents are a big problem from metal degreasing, industrial cleaning, etc. Pre-hazardous waste laws, the manufacturer instructions were to pour spent solvents on the ground and let it evaporate. With current knowledge that is clearly not a good thing to do, but the hazards were unknown to the general public. So that stuff happened in the 1950s to early 1970s is still being cleaned up. It would have been ideal for it not to have happened in the first place, but it’s not like companies are doing that anymore (if they are operating appropriately).

TL;DR Yes, but reality is nuanced, as always.

The recent federal bullshit is a definitely the culmination of decades of industry trying to undo environmental regulations. Moving forward, it’s going to take serious efforts and funds to repair and rebuild how much the US EPA and federal sciences were gutted. Some states are actually doing far better. On the environmental side of things, Ohio is actually pretty good. The programs are based on the federal ones and also have more protective limits to some things. Unfortunately, not all states have the resources or programs in place.

To your specific points, treated sewage solids have been spread on ag land for decades. Concentrates animal feeding operations (CAFOs) have been polluting waterways through permit exemptions for decades. A huge issue with land applied sewage solids is PFAS, which is just now publicly coming to light. There are vast deficiencies in the way things have been happening all along that still happened in the “golden era”.

Negligent or intentional releases of hazardous waste onto the surface or into waterways has been greatly curtailed across the board. There are going to to be ups and downs in speed due to the reality of investigation and cleanup work, regulatory review time frames, and the thorough nature of the programs. The “fast” version of a facility cleanup that I’ve been part of, where problems were addressed as they were discovered, still took from 2009 to 2018, then massive reporting efforts that took US EPA 5 years to come back with a final decision.

ETA: Most sites I have worked on in my career have been legacy contamination sites, meaning things happened in tue 50s-80s, and the companies responsible have been purchased 2 or 3 times since (or are entirely defunct). The companies that bought the sites and liabilities generally want to do the right thing and clean up the issues to mitigate human health and environmental risks. They also don’t want to go bankrupt in the process, which is part of why things take so long. Environmental work is expensive, and the time frames for cleanup and monitoring can be years to decades to “in perpetuity” for some issues.

Yes. there are stipulations in the draft water about maximum withdrawal from surface water sources and required continuous monitoring of water temperature of the discharges.

I have worked in environmental consulting for the past decade and have routinely dealt with Ohio EPA on both hazardous waste investigation/remediation and NPDES permitted discharges. I have been part of teams preparing and submitting antidegradation and NPDES permit renewals, as well as maintaining compliance with existing permits. After reading through the news article and then the actual draft permit, the news article is very sensationalized. I am in no way defending the data centers or operators. The news article correctly states the discharges are untreated but fails to mention the strict monitoring requirements that would in place to maintain antidegradation and conform with Ohio Water Quality Standards and public water supply standards. There is also a Notice of Intent that requires the applicant to meet a list of requirements to even be considered for discharging under the general permit. NPDES permitting is a federal program that is also administered by the states. Ohio EPA is setting some pretty stringent limits under their authority in their draft permit, and the public and news organizations are cherry picking and/or don’t have the background to understand the permit requirements.

Draft permit and fact sheets here.

I’m not surprised. The standard Microsoft disclosure on my work laptop at the login screen states any use ofbthw computer may be monitored and/ or recovered by Microsoft and law enforcement. That’s why Microsoft products are not present in my home.

Fully agree

Sadly tech security, privacy, and freedom are not a focus for most people. Just gotta keep doing what you can personally do to make it better.

Second vote for Fedora. I set up my wife’s laptop with Fedora KDE, and she uses it with no issues. She gets easily frustrated by tech hiccups, and Fedora KDE just works for her.

I get your point on that. My assumption with the tech glasses is that you purchase the hardware outright and pay a subscription for the software functionality, similar to other tech devices that have fallen to enshitification. The prime difference I see is that standard glasses packages are a one time lump payment vs a one time lump payment followed by a slow bleed of money. Yes, prescriptions change, frames break, etc., but on a 1:1 comparison level, you get more reliable functionality and cost effectiveness through regular glasses rather than something that can be bricked through a bad software/firmware update or rendered nonfunctional by the manufacturer if you reject an invasive privacy policy or let a subscription lapse.

Again, no. My point is that if I purchase a pair of frames with lenses, the transaction is over. I would not have to pay a monthly subscription for those same glasses and lenses to remain functional, which is much more likely for a set of glasses infused with technology and tracking, backed by Amazon.

The tech glasses positied here would still need to be updated periodically. Per the article, they have a base prescription lens that then has additional focusing ability layered on via the technology.

I should have clarified one time cost for frames and a pair of lenses compared against a potential (likely) subscription. I have personally worn bifocals for the last 21 years.

Bold assumption on my part here, but why would the manufacturer of such a juicy target for tracking not make it with connectivity? Something like this would be monetized and milked for advertising and subscription revenue on principle alone. Eye tracking technology that determines vision clarity based on where the user looks is but a small skip and a jump from advertising based on where the user looks.

ETA: Per the first line of the article, the company is backed by Amazon.

Yeeeeaaaahhhh, I’m going to go ahead and stick with a one time payment for proven 250+ year old technology instead of what would very likely be a subscription based privacy nightmare that can revoke my access to clear sight whenever they update their T&Cs. Hard pass, get fucked with a splintery utility pole.