A lot of datacenter are operating their own Natural gas based power generation. Which in itself is a different dynamic than buying electricity.
I have operated such a setup, at a much lower industrial manufacturing scale. The tradeoffs are quite stark. The electricity is cheaper, but generators/turbines need to operate at 80% capacity to be feasible. In the slow hours, they become an albatross.
So they lose more money per user if less people are using the services, but they also lose money overall if more people are using them.
We have to remember that for the vast majority of human history, keeping people alive and healthy was not a concern. Most medical interventions discovered during post-Industrial Revolutions did not require special technology.
It is only when human labor was needed at a large scale when we started caring about people living long healthy lives.
Summary of the old regime: Mergers that lead to 5+% market share were blocked.
Then the "consumer harm in terms of prices" was adopted. Which swung the pendulum the other way. That is the fundamental economic policy now. Which has lead to abhorrent results.
I find the discussion around tariffs in the US pretty weird. The people making the case for them right now sound like complete idiots at points and downright dishonest at other points, and the people making the case against them sound weirdly racist and classist.
It is partly because of polarization, but mostly because the US economic and policy discourse is centered around nebulous "Consume Harm", as measured in price.
The "for" camp claims:
1. Tariffs will bring manufacturing home overnight,
2. Everything import should be taxed,
3. And tariffs are being paid by the foreign exporter, so American consumers will be shielded from price increases.
All of these claims are lies. American business' biggest input cost is labor. By a long margin. Tariffs need to be much higher for manufacturing to be a feasible investment in most industries. Which means more pain for the consumer.
The 'against' camps argument all hinge on the fact these are filthy jobs for filthy foreigners and poors. There is no need for them in the US. Even if they are not focusing on that issue, they are talking about how taxing imports cause "Consumer harm" and therefore it is bad.
That is the crux of this post as well. The tariffs did cause price increases for consumer.
But if the goal is to increase manufacturing base in the US, then this harm would be irrelevant in the long term.
This obsession with "Consumer Harm" has poisoned all trade and economic policy in the US. It is the reason Anti-trust is toothless in the US, why every industry is an oligopoly, and why the rust belt exists.
Of course, protectionism is not the only ingredient needed to promote any given industry. China, Vietnam, Korea and India did it via robust industrial policy. Some might say US did so as well, during World War 2. But that is cOmMuNiSm now.
This is funny because it is an unfounded claim replying to the request for proof.
I can show you my git tree where GLM4.5 deleted my whole test suite and my session docs where it invented new github cli commands. Are you willing to show us where you saw me taking money from any US tech company?
I have operated such a setup, at a much lower industrial manufacturing scale. The tradeoffs are quite stark. The electricity is cheaper, but generators/turbines need to operate at 80% capacity to be feasible. In the slow hours, they become an albatross.
So they lose more money per user if less people are using the services, but they also lose money overall if more people are using them.