Courtesy of The New York Times.

Dear Commons Community,

Adam Mastroianni, an experimental psychologist, has an opinion essay in The New York Times, entitled, “The Environmental Case Against Data Centers Is Misguided”.  Here is an excerpt:

“The war over artificial intelligence is playing out largely at local zoning board meetings. More than a dozen A.I. data center projects have been blocked or delayed because of local opposition, often motivated by environmental concerns.  Last week Gov. Kathy Hochul of New York signed an executive order halting construction of the state’s largest data centers for one year — the nation’s first such moratorium.According to a March Gallup poll, 71 percent of American adults said they opposed the construction of A.I. data centers in their areas, and worries about the environment were the most common reason.

I empathize with the environmental opposition to data center construction, but the arguments are shakier than they seem. The battle over where A.I. data centers are being built is really a battle over what role A.I. should play in our lives. And that’s a battle that critics can win.

Many people feel that A.I. is being foisted on them by a handful of tech billionaires, in ways that are incorporeal and difficult to resist. Data centers, on the other hand, are physical structures that are subject to zoning regulations. So it makes sense that anger toward and anxiety about A.I. are manifesting as opposition to the buildings that house it. Regular people can’t tell Sam Altman what to do, but they can kick him out of their towns.’

I am okay with Mastroianni’s position.  The broader AI issue is the more critical issue that should be confronted.

Mastrianno’s entire essay is below.

 Tony

——————————————

The New York Times

Guest Essay

The Environmental Case Against Data Centers Is Misguided

July 25, 2026

By Adam Mastroianni

The war over artificial intelligence is playing out largely at local zoning board meetings. More than a dozen A.I. data center projects have been blocked or delayed because of local opposition, often motivated by environmental concerns. Last week Gov. Kathy Hochul of New York signed an executive order halting construction of the state’s largest data centers for one year — the nation’s first such moratorium. According to a March Gallup poll, 71 percent of American adults said they opposed the construction of A.I. data centers in their areas, and worries about the environment were the most common reason.

I empathize with the environmental opposition to data center construction, but the arguments are shakier than they seem. The battle over where A.I. data centers are being built is really a battle over what role A.I. should play in our lives. And that’s a battle that critics can win.

Many people feel that A.I. is being foisted on them by a handful of tech billionaires, in ways that are incorporeal and difficult to resist. Data centers, on the other hand, are physical structures that are subject to zoning regulations. So it makes sense that anger toward and anxiety about A.I. are manifesting as opposition to the buildings that house it. Regular people can’t tell Sam Altman what to do, but they can kick him out of their towns.

Data centers should be held to the same environmental standards as any other project. However, according to the researcher Andy Masley, giving up a lifetime of interacting with large language models would make a negligible difference in emissions compared with avoiding one trans-Atlantic flight or switching to a hybrid car. By his estimates, sending a prompt to ChatGPT is about as carbon-intensive as running a clothes dryer for a single second.

Communities have long tolerated wasteful projects that take up tons of space, consume lots of natural resources and serve the whims of wealthier people. They’re called golf courses and backyards. The 14,000 golf courses across the United States used nearly 550 billion gallons of water in 2020, and the Environmental Protection Agency estimated that Americans use over three trillion gallons of water on “landscape irrigation” each year. No one knows for sure how much water data centers use in total. One reasonable estimate from Brian Potter at the Institute for Progress put it at about 100 billion gallons in 2023. Even if the number of data centers increases tenfold, we may still end up using less water on artificial intelligence than we use to keep our grass springy.

Everybody deserves a say in the future of A.I. We don’t have to resort to NIMBYism and questionable environmental arguments to get it. Even if one community succeeds in keeping the data centers out, another community — probably a poorer and more desperate one — will let them in.

Whether we realize it or not, we are all, right now, writing the rulebook for what A.I. should be allowed to do and how humans should interact with it, through the choices we make for ourselves and the choices we praise or criticize other people for making. Every time you tell your troubles to Gemini or use Claude to write a birthday card, you’re tacitly endorsing A.I. for these practices. But every time you close the chat window and think for yourself instead and every time you razz a friend for relying on ChatGPT summaries, you tighten our social norms around the use of A.I.

I am a scientist and a writer, and I’m happy to use A.I. to do my job better: I’ll let it write code, fetch articles for me to read or flag errors in statistical analyses for me to investigate further. A.I. is a tool. Its purpose is to serve our purposes. If it does that well, it might be worth the water and electricity it consumes.

I refuse to let A.I. evolve from a tool into a partner. I won’t let it write my sentences. I don’t share with it my fears, hopes or dreams the way I would with a friend or lover. I don’t trust its factual claims unless I can check the sources myself. I ignore it when it praises my ideas, since it can’t tell the difference between insight and nonsense.

It should be humiliating to choose A.I. friendships over human ones. It should be cringe to willingly consume computer-generated slop. Trying to pass off a large language model’s words as your own should be seen not just as cheating but also as loser behavior.

It might sound idealistic to suggest that every person has some influence over the future of technology. Yet this has proved true over and over again, even in the recent past. Plenty of expensive tech ventures have failed. They weren’t banned, voted out or blocked by zoning laws. They failed because people refused to reward them with time and attention: The Metaverse. Quibi. Nonfungible tokens. A.I. is unlikely to disappear, but the form it takes is up to us.

Tech companies may have deep pockets, and they may be able to overcome the environmental objections to data centers. They can’t dictate how we use the tools they provide. Ultimately, the role that A.I. plays in our world will be determined not so much by what is legally allowed but by what is socially acceptable.

Dear Commons Community,

At Friday night’s correspondence dinner, Trump was embarrassed as several news reporters and analysts received awards for their work on exposing Trump’s involvement in the Epstein scandal.  See the video below.  It says it all.  The awards start at the 2:00 minute mark.

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

My colleague, David Bloomfield, who is quoted, alerted me to this news item.  

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani said more must be done to address racial disparities in New York City’s specialized high school admissions after new Department of Education data showed only three Black students received offers to Stuyvesant High School’s incoming freshman class.

The number of Black students admitted to the school’s class of 777 ninth-grade students represents an even greater disparity than last year’s eight admitted and 10 the year before.  As reported by Spoecturm News NY1.

“When we’re looking at our school system, we know that there is so much more to be done, especially to address the racial inequities that we’ve seen, not just frankly when we’re talking about the disparities and the admissions of one test, but across the system as a whole,” Mamdani said.

The mayor, a graduate of The Bronx High School of Science, said the admissions data does not reflect students’ academic potential.

“We know that a single test does not reflect the aptitude of students across the city. We know that Black and Latino students are excelling across the five boroughs,” he said.

According to the Department of Education, Black students received about 3% of offers to the city’s eight specialized high schools, which include Stuyvesant High School, The Bronx High School of Science and Brooklyn Technical High School. Latino students received about 6% of offers, while Asian students received about 57%.

Admission to the schools is based solely on students’ scores on the Specialized High Schools Admissions Test, known as the SHSAT.

David Bloomfield, an education professor at Brooklyn College and the CUNY Graduate Center, said the admissions process should rely on multiple measures rather than a single exam.

“That admissions system is broken,” he said. “It shouldn’t be based on a multiple-choice test that people can study for, for years, in order to get in. It selects for test prep it doesn’t select for brightness.”

Bloomfield said students’ grades and other academic measures should be considered in admissions decisions. He also noted that the mayor has the authority to change admissions criteria at some specialized high schools that are not governed by state law.

“Mayor Mamdani could eliminate the criteria for the other schools to try to experiment, see what happens,” Bloomfield said.

He added, “The story here is a particularly odd artifact from the 1970’s that continues to determine the high school destiny, if not the life destiny of thousands of kids.”

Past efforts to eliminate the SHSAT have failed. Former Mayor Bill de Blasio’s proposal to end the exam for the schools covered under state law faced strong opposition from many Asian American families and alumni, who argued the test-based admissions system is fair and rewards academic achievement.

Mamdani said his administration is focused on improving educational outcomes before students take the exam.

“We’re continuing to monitor this and asking ourselves the question of how can we transform the educational results in the years leading up to that test as well,” he said.

This is a stigma for the NYC public school system.

Tony

Credit…Eric Lee for The New York Times

Dear Commons Community,

Trump yesterday ordered warning signs and exhibits installed outside the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History to alert the public that the museum does not, in his view, accurately reflect American history.   As reported by The New York Times.

The unusual directive, made through an executive order, was a considerable escalation of the president’s dispute with the Smithsonian and its history museum, which was the subject of a recent 162-page report. The report accused the museum’s director, Anthea M. Hartig, of “radical activist ideology” and the museum of undermining “faith in American institutions.”

The order went so far as to suggest that the signage inform potential museum visitors of locations where American history is better presented. The administration did not explain where the public would be redirected.

The Smithsonian declined to comment.

Mr. Trump’s order came just days after Ms. Hartig was grilled by Republican legislators in two congressional hearings, where she was accused of teaching “national self-loathing.”

Ms. Hartig, who was a particular target of the White House report, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. In the hearings she contested the thrust of the report and insisted her museum was simply representing history in all its complexity.

“When historians talk about reframing a traditional narrative, we don’t mean erasing it,” she said in her testimony. “We mean adding the evidence, the voices, the objects that earlier tellings left out so that more Americans can see themselves reflected in the national story.”

Friday’s executive order also ordered several government officials to “restore trust in the Smithsonian Institution” and to seek its compliance with the White House findings, which asserted that the museum had become a tool of political activism and had not done enough to celebrate the achievements of the nation’s founders on the country’s 250th anniversary year.

The government officials include the interior secretary, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, the administrator of general services, and the assistant to the president for domestic policy, the order says. The Domestic Policy Council published the White House’s report on the Smithsonian.

The inclusion of the budget office is consistent with the White House remarks in other settings that pointed to the fact that the Smithsonian is largely federally funded.

Representative Melanie Stansbury, Democrat of New Mexico, was among those who objected to Mr. Trump’s effort.

“Once again, the Trump administration is attempting to use executive authority to exercise its political will over our nation’s independent cultural institutions,” she said in a statement. “This executive order is a clear political overreach, driven by an ideological agenda to rewrite American history. Our Smithsonian institutions do not belong to the president, but the American people, and so does our national story.”

Some historians have also criticized the federal government’s attempts to overhaul the Smithsonian as ideologically motivated.

“I cannot recall a single instance where exhibits have been directly wrestled with by the upper echelons of the federal government,” said Samuel J. Redman, a history professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst who has written extensively on the Smithsonian’s history.

The order by the president said the signage “shall notify visitors that the museum exhibits should be renovated consistent with the findings in the report and direct visitors to locations and resources for accurate information regarding America’s history.”

“Because the museum has failed to appropriately honor the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence during this 250th anniversary year of the founding of our country,” the order continues, government agencies “shall install temporary exhibits or signage on N.P.S.-maintained sidewalks, walkways, and land used by the public that corrects inaccurate information presented in the museum.”

In yesterday’s order, Mr. Trump cited his March 2025 executive order, “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History,” which accused the Smithsonian of undermining “the remarkable achievements of the United States by casting its founding principles and historical milestones in a negative light.”

This week’s hearings, which took place on Tuesday and Wednesday, increased the pressure on Ms. Hartig, who was questioned by lawmakers about exhibitions that they said indicated a liberal bias in emphasizing the country’s flaws and failing to adequately celebrate its achievements.

In particular, Ms. Hartig was repeatedly taken to task for two recent shows, one of which — “Entertainment Nation” — included explicit sexual imagery. Another, “Girlhood (It’s complicated),” discussed struggles with gender identity among young women.

Mike Gonzalez, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation who has written critically about the Smithsonian and testified at both hearings, commended the  executive order for enlisting the oversight of administration officials like Russell T. Vought, the White House budget director, and Vince Haley, the director of the White House’s Domestic Policy Council.

“Since I think the only way to correct the Smithsonian is to remove from office its entire leadership,” Mr. Gonzalez said, “I trust these two intellectual heavy hitters will work to do that.”

But Dr. Redman, the historian, said that many observers have been dismayed by the aggressiveness of the White House efforts to take control of the Smithsonian and its 21 museums.

“Historians are appalled,” Dr. Redman said. “The Smithsonian has been known for trying to present a consensus version of history.”

Trump’s actions will probably increase attendance at the Smithsonian!

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

A frustrated Trump threw a curse-riddled temper tantrum inside the Oval Office over his own failure to end the war in Iran, according to an inside source.

Trump called Iranian leaders “scumbags” and lunatics” and was heard “unleashing a series of expletives,” The Wall Street Journal reported late Thursday night.

“Trump is increasingly frustrated that a conflict he once thought would be over in a matter of weeks has dragged on with no end in sight,” the Wall Street Journal reported.

“Some of Trump’s advisers now worry that the war—which has resulted in higher prices, falling approval ratings and the deaths of more than a dozen U.S. service members—is consuming his presidency.”

Trump’s frustration stems from his growing fear that he cannot negotiate the lasting peace he promised the American people after launching a war without Congressional permission he promised would last “four to five weeks,” the Journal reported.

The memorandum of understanding with Iran, signed in June, lasted just over a month.

“The president in recent days has grown skeptical that negotiations with Iran can produce a lasting peace, according to people familiar with the matter,” the Wall Street Journal reported.

“A senior administration official said Trump believes that the only thing Iran understands is military force, adding that he was in ‘revenge mode’ against Tehran.”

Trump has lost his leverage and credibility in bringing the war to an end! And he knows it!

Tony

Megan Rapinow ©Metro and MSNBC.

Dear Commons Community,

In an interview with “The Daily Show” host Desi Lydic, Megan Rapinoe, one of America’s all-time soccer greats, says Donald Trump threw the men’s team ‘off their game’ and gave Belgium extra motivation to knock the co-hosts out of this summer’s World Cup.

Trump inserted himself at the center of the USA’s World Cup story after Folarin Balogun was shown a red card for a foul on Tarik Muharemovic in the victory over Bosnia and Herzegovina. The sending off meant that Balogun had been due to miss the USA’s all-important round-of-16 tie with Belgium through suspension. However, Balogun’s one-match ban was subsequently suspended for a year by FIFA, a decision which left the Belgian Football Association ‘astonished’ and ‘investigating potential options’. It later emerged that  Trump had spoken privately with FIFA chief Gianni Infantino on the phone, encouraging the governing body to ‘review’ their initial call.  

Rapinoe is an American former professional soccer player celebrated for her skill as a winger. She is a two-time FIFA Women’s World Cup champion (2015, 2019), Olympic gold medalist (2012) and bronze medalist (2020), she won the 2019 Ballon d’Or Féminin and FIFA Women’s Player of the Year. Off the field, she is a prominent advocate for LGBTQ+ rights, racial justice, and gender pay equity, and received the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2022.

Rapionoe knows of what she speaks!

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

As Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell’s weekslong absence from the Senate and the public eye stretches on, his hometown newspaper has published a “pre-obituary” of the “not yet departed” 84-year-old that paints the longtime Republican senator as “every bit the detestable figure that” President Richard Nixon was.

The scathing reflection on McConnell’s career was written by columnist Joseph Gerth, who has covered Kentucky politics at Louisville’s The Courier Journal since 1988 — three years into the Louisville native’s first of seven Senate terms.  
As reported by People.

“Unlike Nixon, McConnell never paid for his sins that have damaged our nation’s trust in government, destroyed the country’s ability to have meaningful dialogue and cemented our nation’s politics as an arena in which winning is the only thing that matters,” wrote Gerth, who spent a decade as the paper’s chief political reporter, in an op-ed on Wednesday, July 22.

McConnell was hospitalized on June 14 with a condition his office refused to disclose, offering virtually no information on his status for nearly a month.

On July 12, his office released his first photo since the hospitalization and a lengthy statement that said he “took a fall” as a result of what he and a doctor quoted in the statement credited to “mobility challenges” from surviving polio as a child.

McConnell insisted that he did not suffer a heart attack, a stroke, a concussion or any broken bones. And he said his doctors determined he had no tumors or hemorrhages.

The July 12 statement noted that during his hospitalization, he “developed pneumonia, which responded rapidly to antibiotic treatment” and that his treatment going forward will focus “on physical therapy and strategies to reduce his risk of future falls.”

It noted he has been moved from hospital care to a rehabilitation center.

But in the days since, McConnell has still not returned to work or appeared publicly or in a recorded video, contributing to further speculation within his own party and sparking criticism from Democrats like Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear and New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

“I don’t even know how this is legal,” Ocasio-Cortez, 36, said last week. “I really don’t even know how this is legal at this point, and it’s, I just find it shocking.”

“And how is everyone pretending this is normal?” she continued. “This is not normal.”

Gerth wrote in his Wednesday column that he was sparked to write his evaluation of McConnell’s life’s work after seeing pushback to criticisms of the late South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham following the 71-year-old Republican’s sudden death on July 11.

“That got me thinking about Sen. Mitch McConnell, who was rumored to be dead or on life support or in a coma or whatever and was the odds-on favorite to beat Graham to the gates of hell in the days before Graham’s death,” Gerth wrote. “And, so with McConnell allegedly on the mend, I figured I’d go ahead and tell you what I think about McConnell now — when no one can complain, ‘How dare you write that about a dead guy?’ ”

The longtime Kentucky political reporter tallied up McConnell’s achievements during his 42 years as senator: bringing billions in investment to the state, rebuilding the Kentucky Republican Party, and defending unpopular free speech.

Gerth also noted that McConnell once boasted he voted for Democratic President Lyndon Baines Johnson in 1964 over the opposition to civil rights by Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater, the Republican nominee.

Yet as a senator decades later, the columnist wrote, McConnell was the architect of the 6-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court that has now undone much of the legal achievements of the civil rights movement that McConnell once claimed to belong to — including attending the 1963 March on Washington where the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. gave his “I Have a Dream” speech.

“He had more guts as a young man than he had as an old man,” Gerth wrote. “It seems somehow fitting for the ultimate shape-shifter, who wrote about accompanying Sen. John Sherman Cooper to see Johnson sign the Voting Rights Act into law, that the court he created was the court that struck down the last remaining significant provision.”

The Kentucky Republican’s “biggest failing may be his embrace of a president who he believes is stupid and who he believes led an attempt to overthrow the United States’ government on Jan. 6, 2021,” Gerth continued.

Beyond McConnell deciding to once again support a president he accused of triggering “a violent insurrection for the purpose of trying to prevent the peaceful transfer of power after a legitimately certified election,” Gerth noted the senator has also tolerated President Donald Trump’s racist remarks towards his wife, former Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao.

“And that is the legacy of Mitch McConnell,” Gerth wrote. “He ends his career adopting the anti-civil rights positions Barry Goldwater supported, handed to him by a despised and distrusted Supreme Court that he created.”

Representatives for McConnell, who vowed to finish out his final term through January 2027, did not immediately respond to People’s request for comment about the “pre-obituary” yesterday.

Tony

Michael Kratsios

Dear Commons Community,

The White House is proposing new measures to reshape the nation’s roughly $200-billion research and development portfolio, according to a report and memo released Tuesday. A Trump administration official said Tuesday the proposed measures would divert some federal research dollars away from universities and toward “individual scientists” and AI-powered research.  As reported by The Chronicle of Higher Education.

The new report, penned by Michael Kratsios, director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, argues that scientific development has been hampered by bureaucratic universities and governments. It calls on federal agencies to “strip away unnecessary burdens” and “realign funding toward excellence and risk-taking” in research. It also states that the government must “prepare our research enterprise for the AI revolution,” claiming that “legacy scientific institutions and infrastructure are not ready to take full advantage of this transformation.”

One explicit goal, according to Kratsios, is “to change what we fund, supporting people over projects.”

• As examples of models to follow, the report cites a Howard Hughes Medical Institute program that awards dollars directly to scholars and not to institutions.
• A study found those privately supported researchers produced high-impact publications at a higher rate than those who received federal funding, the report asserts.
• Kratsios also wants to reduce indirect-cost reimbursements, which is how universities currently pay for the lab equipment, staff, and administrative overhead for research projects.

Anxieties surrounding international competition over technology and military development pervade the report, which was first covered by the The Wall Street Journal. Kratsios writes that the United States needs to “secure its position as the unrivaled world leader in critical and emerging technologies — such as artificial intelligence, quantum information science, and nuclear technology.”

The report repeats previous claims by the Trump administration that higher ed and grant making have become politicized, indicating plans to open “alternative pathways beyond standard academia, and ensure that selection rests purely on merit, not the political fashions of the day.”

But universities are held up as key partners in other parts of the report.

• It says federal leaders should “drive coordinated efforts with local universities and national laboratories to build specializations and workforce pipelines.”
• Another section states, “Universities remain essential for training scientists and pursuing fundamental questions.”
• But the document also calls for “vigilant self-improvement to ensure these institutions remain suited to the answering the most important questions.”

Holden Thorp, editor in chief of Science, said Americans’ low trust in universities has catalyzed the ideas laid out in the report. According to a recent Gallup poll, just 38 percent of Americans have a “great deal” of trust in higher education.

“They’re not talking about defunding science, they’re talking about defunding the universities,” Thorp said. “Everybody needs to get their act together and build a coalition that can rebuild trust in higher education.”

Tony

Gageskidmore / Flickr

Dear Commons Community,

Billionaire investor Mark Cuban has a new metaphor for the AI infrastructure boom, and it doubles as a plug for one of his side projects. On the latest episode of the All-In podcast, Cuban predicted that “a lot of data centers… are going to be turned into pickleball courts” if AI models and data centers keep getting more efficient. The joke lands harder because Cuban co-owns the Dallas Flash pickleball team. The underlying argument is one investors chasing the “Mark Cuban AI bubble” and “AI infrastructure overbuild” narratives should take seriously.

Cuban brings dot-com-era operator credibility to the debate. He is a founder who sold Broadcast.com to Yahoo for $5.7 billion in April 1999, right before the market imploded. That timing gives his overbuild warning some weight, even if his “data centers to pickleball courts” punchline is doing most of the work on social media.  As reported by 24/7 Wall Street.

The Efficiency Argument

Cuban’s core view is that hyperscalers like Meta and Alphabet are correctly betting that AI usage will keep rising, but that “technological breakthroughs” will make AI dramatically cheaper and more power-efficient. If that happens, much of the computing capacity being poured into the ground today will not be needed at the scale currently planned.

His analogy is the late-1990s fiber-optic rush. Telecoms overbuilt long-haul networks, then connection speeds improved and, in Cuban’s telling, “there wasn’t a bandwidth problem anymore.” He expects a similar price-performance curve in AI compute. On Big Tech’s habit of pouring cash into AI infrastructure, borrowing heavily, and pledging to keep spending for years, Cuban called it “planning for perfection, and that’s going to be hard,” adding, “nobody can predict that well.”

A Different Kind of Bubble, in Cuban’s View

Cuban is careful to separate overbuild risk from mania. He argues the AI boom is “not the traditional dot-com bubble” because there are fewer companies going public at “crazy valuations” with “no revenue, no traffic, no nothing,” and none of the retail-mania tells (like cab drivers pitching internet stocks) that defined 2000. “It’s not the traditional dot-com bubble, right?” he said.

Where the pain would show up, in his framing, is narrower. Cuban said the damage would be concentrated: it “could just destroy a lot of VCs and a lot of funds and a lot of PE” that have gone all-in on AI infrastructure bets, while sparing “most people across the US.”

He Is Not Alone

Other well-known skeptics have arrived at similar conclusions through different doors. Michael Burry has warned that Big Tech is overinvesting in chips and data centers that could quickly become obsolete. GMO co-founder Jeremy Grantham has called AI “obviously a bubble,” comparing it to the railroad and internet bubbles as transformational technologies that still sparked overinvestment. All three still see AI as transformative. Their argument is that the capex math assumes a demand curve history rarely delivers.

What the Market Is Saying Right Now

The current market is running the other way. Super Micro Computer just disclosed over $60 billion in new orders and a record backlog in its latest SEC filing, guiding gross margin to 15-17%, doubled from a previous 8% outlook, and the stock rose 24%. Bank of America is telling clients that wafer fab equipment spending will surge from $144 billion in 2026 to $250 billion by 2028. OpenAI plans to dramatically increase compute spending through 2030, and Microsoft just signed a multi-billion-dollar agreement to rent computing capacity from Mistral’s European data centers.

That is exactly the “planning for perfection” Cuban is warning about. Whether it ends in more revenue or more pickleball courts is the question every AI-infrastructure investor should be underwriting right now.

Interesting perspective!

Tony