Or would it be fine if xAI were polluting a poor white neighbourhood?

You're absolutely right that most hazards affect poor communities more. That's not a coincidence - it's the predictable result of power dynamics in zoning and enforcement decisions.

Your comment reads a bit like "water is wet, why mention it?" But most people living in clean-air zip codes have no idea their comfort of living depends on someone else's respiratory disease. They assume industrial siting is purely based on logistics or economics, not on which communities lack the political capital to fight back.

The whole point is that zoning decisions, permit enforcement, and industrial siting aren't random acts of nature. Rich neighborhoods get golf courses and poor neighborhoods get data centers with unpermitted turbines. That's not gravity - it's policy. Documenting these patterns isn't stating the obvious, it's the first step toward accountability. Because "that's just how things are" is exactly what those benefiting from the status quo want everyone to believe.

Of course I was. The sarcasm wasn't exactly subtle.

> But alas, neither does that really affect how I view the article or Musk.

The fact that you believe this while simultaneously demonstrating the opposite is genuinely fascinating.

You opened with "I'm no Elon fan" and then revealed you bought one of the first Teslas in your country and are a "huge SpaceX fan." That's like a Yankees season ticket holder insisting their fandom doesn't affect how they judge controversial umpire calls.

Here's what I think happened: You've spent 3.5 years and 110,000 km in that Model 3, feeling like you're part of something transformative - saving the planet, advancing humanity to Mars, whatever narrative helps justify the premium you acknowledge overpaying. When criticism emerges about Musk's companies, it doesn't just challenge a corporation - it threatens the story you tell yourself about your choices.

The overpayment actually worsens this. You can't even tell yourself, "It was just a practical decision." Instead, you've had to construct meaning around that premium - that you're supporting something bigger, something important. The sunk cost isn't just financial; it's emotional and ideological.

So when an article documents xAI operating turbines without permits in already-polluted neighborhoods, you can't engage with those facts directly. Instead, you immediately pivot to Musk's environmental legacy, as if Tesla's global impact creates some cosmic pollution credit karma system where South Memphis residents should accept respiratory disease as acceptable collateral damage for you feeling great about your reduced carbon footprint.

The most telling part? You attacked the article for mentioning two basic facts that appear in literally every single environmental justice story: who owns the company (standard disclosure) and which communities are affected (relevant demographics). You called factual reporting a "hit piece" not because it was inaccurate, but because it made the guy who bought the companies that make the car you drive and the rockets you like to see go 'whoosh' look bad.

You claim the article is biased while demonstrating textbook motivated reasoning. You weren't reading critically - you were reading defensively, scanning for any angle to discredit reporting that challenges your worldview. The "race card" accusation was particularly desperate, as if noting which communities bear pollution burdens is somehow more offensive than the pollution itself.

The real tragedy here is that you could simply say, "Tesla's environmental benefits are real AND xAI should follow permit requirements." Both can be true! But that would require acknowledging that Musk's companies can do wrong, which apparently conflicts too strongly with whatever identity you've constructed around owning a Tesla and being a "huge fan" of SpaceX.

Also, it's pretty interesting that you felt compelled to respond to the little jab about owning a Tesla but chose not to engage with any of my factual criticism. Because that's the tiny part of my comment that threatened the identity you've built up. I'd encourage you to examine that.

You claim decades of carbon advocacy, yet your first instinct was to attack accurate reporting about unpermitted emissions. What exactly is your advocacy worth when you'll throw vulnerable communities under the bus the moment it conflicts with your parasocial relationship with a billionaire (or his companies)?

The saddest part? I genuinely believe you think you're being objective here.

Happy to hear the Model 3 is treating you well, though.

>that the xAI air pollution disproportionately affects black neighbourhoods.

So is it true or not? If it true, the outcome is not equitable whether you call it racism or (probably more accurately) classism. It's part of the pernicious pattern among powerful companies of privatizing profits while socialising costs.

I mean 400 MW is tiling a 4km square with cheap PV, even after accounting for capacity factor. And 400 MW is also what you get from 1052 Tesla Model 3's at max acceleration, according to their website (though obviously draining a 74kWh battery at 510hp empties it rather a lot faster than "overnight"), and ICEs are also tiny power plants so you get the same power out from order-of-magnitude same number of those.

In fact, this is why I'm putting the money I can set aside for investments, into China rather than the USA: they're speed-running cheap PV and batteries, which are cheaper than most everything else right now.

Consolidating down lots of small generators to bigger ones might the idea here?

Having isn't running.