The Register

Biting the hand that feeds IT — Enterprise Technology News and Analysis

America unites on one issue: Reining in datacenters

Datacenter restrictions found broad support in this week's US midterm elections. Data Center Watch, which tracks grassroots opposition to compute sheds across America, examined the public positions of 74 selected candidates across the 36 states that elected governors in the midterm elections on November 3. It found that 43 percent of those candidates supported a ban or moratorium on new projects, while another 51 percent backed further regulation or conditional development. Only about 5 percent had no stated public position. Support for bans or moratoriums crossed party lines, although it was more common among the Democratic candidates examined (60 percent) than Republicans (30 percent). Candidates from both major parties backed restrictions in eight states: Maryland, Maine, Michigan, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oregon, Wisconsin, and Texas. Texas has experienced a boom in data campus development recently, thanks to its ample energy resources and light-touch regulations, although outgoing governor Greg Abbott ordered a pause earlier this year while audits of energy and water use were carried out. Democrat Gina Hinojosa, who supports a temporary moratorium on datacenter buildouts and has vowed to "stop the data center takeover,” defeated Abbott in Tuesday's election and will take office in January. These positions matter to developers because governors can shape state regulation, energy policy, and permitting, although approval powers vary by jurisdiction. However, temporary pauses and targeted construction restrictions do not necessarily amount to opposition to all datacenter development. Things were even starker where folks got to vote directly on the issue, with measures regarding datacenters appearing on the ballot as well as candidates. Data Centers on the Ballot, which tracked many of these, found that 43 out of 46 municipalities where tighter restrictions on server farms were up for a vote had approved those at the time of publication. Only in one case, the City of Harwood in North Dakota, had restrictions been rejected, and 2 had yet to post results. AI-related campaign spending has also come under scrutiny. Guardrails Alliance, a labor-backed pressure group, described Leading the Future, a super PAC network opposing AI regulation, as "largely a non-factor" in the elections. It alleged the network avoided the most competitive races because "they know their money is politically toxic." Anti-datacenter sentiment has grown in the US in response to the facilities popping up in people's backyards, often without them having any say in the process. A Gallup survey earlier this year discovered that more than 70 percent of Americans would be against the construction of one in their neighborhood, while a Pew Research Center survey found that Americans increasingly believe datacenters are bad for the environment and blame them for rising household energy bills. Pew also found that advertisers spent almost $12 million on Facebook and Instagram political ads mentioning datacenters between July 27 and October 24. Among those running in October through the study's cutoff, 57 percent opposed datacenters and just three percent supported them. Common themes included corporate interests, energy use, environmental effects, and water consumption. ®

US midterm candidates find something to agree on: Reining in datacenters

Datacenter restrictions found broad support among candidates for governor in this week's US midterm elections, with nearly all those examined by Data Center Watch backing bans, pauses, or tighter development rules. Data Center Watch, which tracks grassroots opposition to compute sheds across America, examined the public positions of 74 selected candidates across the 36 states that elected governors in the midterm elections on November 3. It found that 43 percent of those candidates supported a ban or moratorium on new projects, while another 51 percent backed further regulation or conditional development. Only about 5 percent had no stated public position. Support for bans or moratoriums crossed party lines, although it was more common among the Democratic candidates examined (60 percent) than Republicans (30 percent). Candidates from both major parties backed restrictions in eight states: Maryland, Maine, Michigan, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oregon, Wisconsin, and Texas. Texas has experienced a boom in data campus development recently, thanks to its ample energy resources and light-touch regulations, although outgoing governor Greg Abbott ordered a pause earlier this year while audits of energy and water use were carried out. Democrat Gina Hinojosa defeated Abbott in Tuesday's election and will take office in January. Those positions matter to developers because governors can shape state regulation, energy policy, and permitting, although approval powers vary by jurisdiction. However, temporary pauses and targeted construction restrictions do not necessarily amount to opposition to all datacenter development. AI-related campaign spending has also come under scrutiny. Guardrails Alliance, a labor-backed pressure group, described Leading the Future, a super PAC network opposing AI regulation, as "largely a non-factor" in the elections. It alleged the network avoided the most competitive races because "they know their money is politically toxic." Anti-datacenter sentiment has grown in the US in response to the facilities popping up in people's backyards, often without them having any say in the process. A Gallup survey earlier this year discovered that more than 70 percent of Americans would be against the construction of one in their neighborhood, while a Pew Research Center survey found that Americans increasingly believe datacenters are bad for the environment and blame them for rising household energy bills. Pew also found that advertisers spent almost $12 million on Facebook and Instagram political ads mentioning datacenters between July 27 and October 24. Among those running in October through the study's cutoff, 57 percent opposed datacenters and just three percent supported them. Common themes included corporate interests, energy use, environmental effects, and water consumption. ®

The Guardian

Latest news, sport, business, comment, analysis and reviews from the Guardian, the world's leading liberal voice

Presidents for Dummies and Harry Potter mania: photos of the day – Wednesday

The Guardian’s picture editors select photographs from around the world

  • Warning: this gallery contains sensitive images

Continue reading...

‘A historic beatdown’: Americans take back their country in rebuke to Trump

Rebecca Solnit and other leading writers on the epic changes to the political map

This is a special election edition of How We Win, a Guardian opinion series with leading thinkers, offering bold ideas for America’s political future. Sign up here to receive future editions in your inbox.

Continue reading...

US midterm elections 2026 live updates: Democrats take control of Congress in major setback for Trump

Democrats flip seven Senate seats in Kansas, Iowa, Texas, Maine, Ohio, North Carolina and South Carolina; ‘blue wave’ rejects Trump’s agenda

Lauren Boebert, the hard-right Colorado congresswoman who has been one of Donald Trump’s most outspoken allies in the House of Representatives, is at risk of losing her seat in a close race with her Democratic challenger.

With more than 80 percent of the vote in, Boebert trails by one-and-a-half percent in the race for Colorado’s 4th District to Eileen Laubacher, a onetime Navy rear admiral and former Republican who switched parties.

Continue reading...

All’s Fair season two review – am I delirious … or is this getting good?

From Glenn Close in pleather to naughty rumours about Bruno Mars, this legal drama is still absolutely ludicrous. But squint hard enough and it has slightly improved since its zero-star debut

On the one hand, Trump and the Maga movement have been routed in the midterms. On the other, the second season of All’s Fair is out. Truly, the lord giveth and the lord taketh away.

For those of you who have blanked the first season from your mind, All’s Fair is the existentially terrible offering from Ryan Murphy’s increasingly manure-filled stable, starring Kim Kardashian, Naomi Watts, Niecy Nash-Betts and, absolutely unaccountably, Glenn Close as the super-duper lawyers of an all-female California divorce firm. Sarah Paulson plays their bananas enemy lawyer, Carrington Lane. And if you think that is some rum work pulled at the font, the other characters labour under the monikers Allura, Emerald and Liberty. Close gets off lightly with Dina, which I hope suggests she has at least some clout left in this strange business we call show.

Continue reading...

Where Trump and Republicans lost the midterm elections - a visual analysis of key states

The Democrats have taken control of the Senate and the House of Representatives. These charts and maps reveal the key trends and races behind this result

The Republicans have lost seven Senators, 25 House districts and five governor races.

As of 8.00am Eastern Time (ET) on Wednesday, more than 1,800 of nearly 2,500 counties with Senate elections had returned more than 90% of their votes. Americans did not turn out in significant numbers for the Republicans amid high fuel prices and dissatisfaction with the president.

Continue reading...

EU to lead talks on support for Ukraine with US, Nato, partners – Europe live

European Commission will hold talks with the US, France, Germany, Britain, Nato, and the World Bank

Meanwhile, the Kremlin said that ⁠it ​hopes that the ⁠results of the US ⁠midterm ​elections ‌will not impact ‌what it ‌said were president Donald Trump’s “peacemaking efforts" on Ukraine, Reuters said.

In comments ‌broadcast by Russian state ​media, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said:

“We ⁠are sincerely ​counting on [Trump] ​continuing ​his peacemaking ​efforts.“

“Governing in the United States will be almost impossible in the coming years given the level of internal division and polarisation. As a European politician I will mainly look of course to trade policies, ⁠support to Ukraine and Nato.”

Continue reading...

US midterms voters said: enough is enough. Is this the beginning of the end for Trump?

With Democrats in power, Trump may be under siege and lose his dominance over the Republican party – but his id will relish at the prospect of fighting

Donald Trump posted a document on social media this summer by a supposed historian that compared him with, among others, Napoleon Bonaparte and Adolf Hitler. That now seems fitting: the US president has himself fought one battle too many, and appears to have brought about his own destruction.

Tuesday’s US midterm elections were a thumping, shellacking and extinction-level event rolled into one. Ruby-red Republican strongholds once deemed safe toppled like dominoes. Democrats won Senate seats for the first time in Kansas since 1932, in Texas since 1988 and in South Carolina since 1998.

Continue reading...

Wel.nl

Minder lezen, Meer weten.

Wil je een leugenaar herkennen? Let niet op zijn blik, maar op de details

Ze kijken weg, friemelen of krijgen een blos. Iedereen denkt dat hij een leugenaar herkent. Toch zit het verraad eerder in wat iemand zegt dan in hoe hij kijkt. En zelfs dan is het lastiger om de populaire lijstjes te geloven.

Minder 'ik', meer negatieve woorden

De bekendste studie naar 'leugentaal' dateert uit 2003. Psychologen lieten proefpersonen ware en verzonnen verhalen vertellen. Daarna telde een computer de woorden.

Het patroon: leugenaars gebruikten minder vaak 'ik' en 'mij' en verwezen minder naar anderen. Ze gebruikten vaker woorden met een negatieve lading en vertelden eenvoudigere verhalen. Het lijkt alsof ze afstand nemen van hun eigen verzinsel.

Dat klinkt als een handig lijstje. Maar het programma wees maar in 61 procent van de gevallen de juiste verteller aan. Bij een vast onderwerp was dat 67 procent. Dat is beter dan gokken, maar nog lang geen leugendetector.

Kleine verschillen

Later legden onderzoekers 44 studies naast elkaar, samen goed voor 79 taalkenmerken. De grote lijn bleef overeind. Leugenaars nemen meer afstand, tonen meer negatieve emoties en gebruiken minder woorden over wat ze zagen, hoorden of voelden.

Maar de verschillen waren klein en hingen sterk af van de situatie. En twijfel in iemands woorden bleek geen leugensignaal: leugenaars klonken niet onzekerder dan mensen die de waarheid spraken.

Wie iemand van liegen beschuldigt omdat hij weinig 'ik' zegt, zit er dus al snel naast.

Slechte leugenspeurders

Daarbij zijn mensen sowieso slecht in het ontmaskeren van leugens. Een grote analyse met ruim 24.000 beoordelaars kwam uit op een gemiddelde van 54 procent goed. Dat is nauwelijks beter dan een munt opgooien.

Toch kreeg beveiligingspersoneel na 9/11 training in maar liefst 92 signalen die op liegen zouden wijzen. Niemand kan zo'n lijst in een paar seconden afwerken.

Eén vraag: hoeveel details?

Onderzoekers van het LeugenLab van de Universiteit van Amsterdam kozen samen met collega's uit Maastricht en Tilburg het omgekeerde: let op één ding en negeer de rest.

In hun experiment moest een groep studenten een tentamen uit een kluisje stelen. Een andere groep brengt een halfuur door op de campus. Daarna zeiden beide groepen dat ze gewoon op de campus waren geweest. In negen studies beoordeelden 1445 mensen die verklaringen.

Wie mocht oordelen zoals hij wilde, scoorde rond het niveau van gokken. Wie alleen lette op details over plaats, tijd en personen, had het in bijna zeven op de tien gevallen goed. Moesten deelnemers ook nog op drie andere signalen letten, dan daalde de score naar 59 procent.

De logica is eenvoudig. Wie iets echt heeft meegemaakt, kan het rijk beschrijven. Een leugenaar houdt het kaal, want elk verzonnen detail kan hem verraden. Vooral details die je kunt natrekken zeggen veel, zeker bij een alibi.

Wat heb je eraan?

Twijfel je aan het verhaal van je puber, een collega of de verkoper van die tweedehands fiets? Vraag door naar concrete details. Waar precies? Hoe laat? Wie was erbij? Let vooral op details die je kunt controleren.

Een kaal verhaal bewijst geen leugen. Zelfs met deze methode zat bijna een op de drie oordelen ernaast. Maar het zegt meer dan iemands blik.

Meer weten?

  • LeugenLab: details verraden de leugenaar (UvA) uva
  • Zo herken je dat iemand tegen je liegt (KIJK) kijkmagazine