156
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2026
156 points (95.3% liked)
Technology
89755 readers
6601 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
There are literally thousands of water infrastructure facilities that are on Shodan now. I take your meaning, but it's a very bad thing.
They should be moving up to Nidan.
Exactly my point. Corruption, stupidity, and complacency allowed that to happen despite experts warning for years it was a terrible idea. This isn't some new threat, the only 'new' part of it is democratization of otherwise arcane knowledge. This is like getting mad that a thermite recipe is being passed around. Yeah, some people will do bad things with it, but generally anything that needs to be secure should be built to be secure against it.
That's not exactly accurate. The problem is that everything in infrastructure was working just fine, and so they figured they could make it more efficient by reducing the staff. And to do that, they put everything online, so it was controllable by fewer people. And they kept doing that year after year. The funding went down and down and down, and there are literal, uh, literal policies that keep them from switching to better stuff. So it's much more complex than the way you draw it.
For example, US water infrastructure would need $2.1 trillion or something around that amount to actually become current and fully repaired.
Where exactly would that come from? It's not an easy answer. It's a much more complex problem. That's all I'm saying.
Source?
https://www.waterloop.org/a-2-trillion-wake-up-call-for-drinking-water/
This is just the first search response, there are probably better ones. I leave that as an exercise for the reader.
Okay, now provide a source that isn't biased AF.
No, that's not on me. You're the one making the claim. You get to prove it.
First, I apologize for sounding dismissive. That wasn't the intent.
Honestly, given the obvious low effort of your reply and the low quality of the content of your reply, I am not inclined to acquiesce to this request. Try harder.
For example, if you were to list specifically why it is "biased AF" and give a detailed analysis instead of just throwing words around. I might respect your viewpoint or opinion, as it is I do not.
I didn't come here seeking to prove anything, and if that's what you want, you can do it on your own time.
Also, you response is too abrasive to elicit the action you request.
Actually, I even question the motives behind your words, so perhaps you can make those clear as well.
Please note, the link to the original report is within the source you dismissed.
Well we could start by nationalizing water services so the inefficiencies that are inherent to monopolistic capitalist entities could be eliminated, drastically reducing costs. And we could pay for it over time with some sort of fee... one that might target those that have hoarded over 98% of all wealth produced over the last 50 years which should have gone into infrastructure maintenance and upgrades. We might even, if we're really clever, directly seize the wealth of the companies that sold these solutions to these water companies given they've compromised national security and public health.
That all would drastically reduce the inflated $2.1 Trillion number which isn't the actual cost, it is the price for private contractors to do it for the government, to something you could reasonably pay for with the wealth already accumulated or that could be accumulated by actually fairly taxing those that have actively harmed society.
If I recall correctly, the amount came from a national study of the technical debt, if you will. For example, my city is a fairly large city, more than a million people, and it's using pipes that are over 100 years old, so that's probably not good, right?
Its a typical situation.
I do agree, we should tax the rich. Even if we magically had the funding yesterday, there are an astonishing number of complexities involved in fixing the aging infrastructure, not the least of which is the zero downtime tolerance.