It's largely about pattern detection in our brains. If the pixels always look the same, it's easier to spot them. For many people graphics in a video game are a secondary addition but the decision making is uncontested priority; modern 3D graphics get in the way by making everything less readable.
If the volume was defined by a manifold mesh, it was already trivial to scatter points, then remove points that when raycasted down on that manifold mesh "volume" hit a normal.z < 0, hardly a node spaghetti as the article says.
Plus if you could use WASM modules as opposed to node systems, you would have a more powerful programming environment - for example, the mentioned "repeat" zone doesn't have "break" functionality, so you need to use a huge number of iterations and do an equivalent of "continue" once you're done, but even if you perfectly estimate the number of iterations you will need, the implementation is very slow. There are other problems like limited scope access, or in general slow node evaluation which make sequential algorithms (not reliant on parallelized work done by loops internal to many nodes) problematic.
Yea but it's not like those people have never seen water. And yet it's not so simple, that you can use water but the water eventually comes back to you. There is a hell lot more nuance to this.
Eventually people stop building more data centers as food becomes scarce and expensive, and farms become the hot new thing for the stock market, cereal entrepreneurs become the new celebrities and so on. Elon Husk, cereal magnate.
The problem is that you take the water from the ground, and you let it evaporate, and then it returns to... Well to various places, including the ground, but the deeper you take the water from (drinking water can't be taken from the surface, and for technological reasons drinking water is used too) the more time it takes to replenish the aquifer - up to thousands of years!
Of course surface water availability can also be a serious problem.
A farmer is a valuable perspective but imagine asking a lumberjack about the ecological effects of deforestation, he might know more about it than an average Joe, but there's probably better people to ask for expertise?
> Honestly, we probably use more water than they do
This kind of proves my point, regardless of the actual truth in this regard, it's a terrible argument to make: availability of water starts to become a huge problem in a growing amount of places, and this statement implies the water usage of something, that in basic principle doesn't need water at all, uses comparable amount of water as farming, which strictly relies on water.
