Diving Deep into Sustainability: The Future of Underwater AI Data Centers and Environmental Impact

To review this article again, go to My Profile and then click on View saved stories.

Could Underwater AI Generation Enhance Sustainability?

Purchasing through the links in our articles may result in a commission for us. This contribution aids our journalistic efforts. Discover more. We also encourage you to subscribe to WIRED.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) data centers are currently a hot topic. Every time AI services analyze vast language databases to provide responses from chatbots, they require substantial computational effort. This process consumes a significant amount of energy, leading to concerns about the sustainability of AI technology and its environmental implications. To address these issues, some companies are exploring the idea of submerging data centers in the ocean. Utilizing the cool temperatures of the surrounding seawater could help manage the heat generated by the GPUs that are tirelessly at work. However, simply placing these structures in marine environments doesn't guarantee a reduction in their ecological footprint.

This week's episode of Gadget Lab features a discussion with WIRED's own Paresh Dave and Reece Rogers, who will share insights from their investigative work on submerged data centers and the environmental impact of the burgeoning AI technology sector.

Episode Outline

Explore the narrative by Paresh and Reece on the initiative to establish a data center beneath the waters of San Francisco Bay. Dive into Reece's analyses on the current phase of excessive AI utilization and strategies for navigating the overwhelming buzz surrounding AI. Discover Lauren's article on a social platform exclusively populated by automated bots. Check out Karen Hao’s piece in The Atlantic detailing the efforts of corporations like Microsoft to extract water from arid regions for cooling AI data facilities. Take a look at the Black Cat substack piece focusing on the character Harper from the series Industry. Stay updated with WIRED’s comprehensive reports on AI and environmental issues.

Suggestions

Paresh suggests borrowing cookbooks from the neighborhood library. Reece advises giving the first Twilight movie's soundtrack a listen for the perfect autumn vibe. Lauren endorses watching the HBO series Industry. Mike suggests reading Anna Weiner's article on bike designer Grant Peterson in The New Yorker.

You can follow Reece Rogers on social media under the username @thiccreese. For Paresh Dave, look up @peard33. Lauren Goode goes by @LaurenGoode. Michael Calore's handle is @snackfight@heads.social. To reach the main hotline, use @GadgetLab. Boone Ashworth, who produces the show, can be found at @booneashworth. The show's theme music is composed by Solar Keys.

Listening Guide

You have the option to enjoy this week's podcast directly via the audio player found on this page. However, if you're interested in subscribing at no cost to receive all episodes, here's the method:

For those using an iPhone or iPad, launch the Podcasts app, or simply click on this link. Alternatively, apps such as Overcast or Pocket Casts can be downloaded, where you can look up Gadget Lab. Android users can locate us easily in the Google Podcasts app by clicking here. We're also available on Spotify. Additionally, if necessary, here is the RSS feed link.

Transcript Note: Please be aware this is a computer-generated transcript and might include inaccuracies.

Michael Calore: Lauren.

Lauren Goode: Mike.

Michael Calore: How frequently do you contemplate your impact on the environment?

Lauren Goode: Constantly.

Michael Calore: Is that so?

Lauren Goode: Absolutely, it's pretty much a constant thing. Every single activity, even something as simple as picking up takeout in a plastic bag, gets me pondering, "How often can I reuse this to be responsible? And why hasn't a better alternative come up?" Whenever I choose to drive instead of cycle to a place, despite your encouragement to bike which I sometimes ignore out of laziness, I feel guilty. Indeed, I do. Some of my thoughts lead to changes in my actions, while others don't.

Michael Calore: Alright. Could you consider disconnecting from the internet due to environmental concerns?

Lauren Goode: I doubt it. Why? Is that something I should be concerned about at this point? Have you been considering it?

Michael Calore: Indeed, my thoughts often turn towards generative AI, primarily because it carries a disproportionately significant environmental impact.

Lauren Goode: Absolutely, it does. The word is that these chatbots demand a lot of resources; in fact, it's the data centers that do.

Michael Calore: Absolutely. The presence of generative AI technologies such as ChatGPT and Gemini is widespread, and it often leads me to reconsider their usage.

Lauren Goode: And you're already quite adept at minimizing your impact.

Michael Calore: Indeed, that's correct.

Lauren Goode: You've chosen not to consume meat and you don't own a vehicle. It shows you're considerate about your impact on the planet.

Michael Calore: I make an effort to do so.

Lauren Goode: So, does this imply you're planning to give me a lecture in this episode?

Michael Calore: I won't give you a sermon, but it's accurate to say that the environmental consequences of generative AI don't cross the minds of many individuals. These applications are accessible on their smartphones. Users find them enjoyable and beneficial. They offer functionalities essential for productivity that have become indispensable, so the thought hardly ever occurs to them.

Lauren Goode: It's something we need to discuss.

Michael Calore: Indeed, we must.

Lauren Goode: Avoiding a lecturing tone.

Michael Calore: Avoiding a lecture format.

Lauren Goode: Let's get started.

[Intro music for Gadget Lab begins]

Michael Calore: Greetings to all. You've tuned into Gadget Lab. My name is Michael Calore, and I oversee Consumer Tech and Culture here at WIRED.

Lauren Goode: And my name is Lauren Goode. I hold the position of senior writer at WIRED.

Michael Calore: This week, we're also accompanied by WIRED senior writer, Paresh Dave, and WIRED staff writer Reece Rogers. It's great to have both of you back on the program.

Paresh Dave: Thrilled to join in. Joyful autumn.

Michael Calore: Greetings of the autumn season

Reece Rogers: Cheerful autumn greetings. Hello there. Hello.

Lauren Goode: Greetings this autumn. It's become quite dim lately.

Michael Calore: Constantly?

Lauren Goode: Indeed. Now, the sun dips below the horizon before 7:00 pm, and it's already dark when I wake up.

Michael Calore: Let's do this. I've just finished taking out all my sweaters.

Lauren Goode: Alright. Welcome to autumn. Fantastic, let's proceed.

Michael Calore: I've just finished taking out all my sweaters from storage. A few of them even feature zippers. Now, turning to you, Reece and Paresh, we invited you here because of your extensive coverage on artificial intelligence for WIRED. Your articles often highlight the dangers and downsides of AI technology. However, an aspect that perhaps doesn't receive enough spotlight is the energy consumption of generative AI, including the power required to operate a chatbot on your smartphone, compose poetry, or utilize a software that removes tourists from your vacation pictures.

Operating these complex systems requires an immense amount of computational power, necessitating large data centers for processing numerous requests. Thus, powering these vast networks of computers is highly energy-intensive, not to mention the significant amounts of electricity and water needed to keep these machines cool. We both collaborated on an article that explores an innovative approach a new company is taking to cool AI servers. Later in this episode, we'll delve deeper into the broader implications of AI's demands on energy and water resources. However, to start, let's discuss the intriguing case of a startup proposing to submerge a data center in the San Francisco Bay, and the unique challenges that idea presents. Who wants to start the conversation?

Reece Rogers: Absolutely, I'm on it. The moment I heard about NetworkOcean's initiative to pilot an underwater data center near San Francisco's coast, my curiosity was piqued. I was brimming with questions and eager for details. To satisfy our curiosity, we brought Sam Mandel and Eric Kim, the brains behind the project, into the WIRED office for a conversation. The founders shared that one of the significant advantages of their concept is the intense heat generated by data centers, which typically requires the evaporation of large volumes of water for cooling. However, by submerging a pod filled with GPUs in the sea, the natural temperature of the ocean water could efficiently cool the system without losing any water to evaporation. They pointed out that the massive evaporation of water by AI data centers poses a serious environmental concern, a topic that has not received adequate attention. Thus, exploring alternatives to minimize water consumption is of paramount importance. However, in our discussions with various experts, Paresh and I learned there are significant worries about the heat discharged by the submerged data center and its potential effects on the marine life and vegetation in the Bay area. Additionally, it's worth noting that the team did not secure a permit for their experimental deployment.

Michael Calore: What was the size of the object they intended to submerge in the Bay?

Reece Rogers: The device resembled a large capsule, akin to the size of a submarine, and was packed with GPUs. They intended to conduct a trial run in the Bay, though they were somewhat secretive about their plans for permanent placement. They were considering various locations both within the US and abroad for this purpose.

Lauren Goode: So, this group didn't have official authorization, yet they believed they could simply deploy a small submersible in the Bay. Did they head over to Crissy Field, shuffle it to the beach, and then release it into the water? Although our main topics are AI and energy, I'm curious about the practical aspects of this situation. What's the process for immersing it in the water? How does one submerge it in San Francisco Bay without having the necessary permissions?

Reece Rogers: You've posed an excellent query. Initially, we had received an invitation to observe the testing process, but following the publication of the article, communication ceased on their end. As of now, I'm uncertain about the situation. It seems unlikely that we'll have the opportunity to witness the test.

Lauren Goode: Additionally, I wouldn’t board a submarine designed by a new company. I'll just… Alright, go on, please.

Paresh Dave explains that roughly ten years ago, Microsoft embarked on an experimental project off the shores of Central California, near San Luis Obispo Bay. They utilized a jetty belonging to a nearby university, which was designated for research purposes. Microsoft installed a data center adjacent to this jetty, under the water, to monitor its performance. Following this, they conducted comparable experiments near Scotland, utilizing a research jetty in that region for similar studies.

In both instances, Microsoft discovered the feasibility of submerged data centers, yet, for undisclosed reasons, they haven't put any into operation. This situation certainly raises eyebrows. Additionally, it was revealed that Microsoft had proceeded with a pilot in California without obtaining the necessary authorization, resulting in a reprimand. Thankfully, regulatory authorities did not identify any significant adverse impacts from this oversight, sparing Microsoft from any financial penalties.

Michael Calore: Regarding those in charge of managing California's or Seattle's aquatic environments, or similar areas, what concerns might they have about submerging computers into these waters to facilitate cooling?

Paresh Dave emphasizes that the critical aspect to consider is the water temperature. For instance, in the Bay Area, any activity or object introduced into the Bay must not cause the water temperature to rise by more than four degrees at any given location. Specifically, near Sacramento, within a different section of the Bay, there exists a floating data center that employs Bay water for its cooling processes. The stipulation for using this water is that the discharged water, after cooling the data center's servers, must not elevate the Bay's water temperature by over four degrees.

The primary issue at hand is the rise in water temperatures, which fosters the growth of harmful algae. This not only poses a threat to fish populations but also disrupts their habitats. Additionally, the dislodging of vital eelgrass habitats and the potential for toxic metals to contaminate the Bay add to the environmental challenges. While the navigation of ships is also a concern, it is the increase in water temperature that stands out as the most critical problem.

Lauren Goode: Can you clarify for me, and perhaps for our audience who are seeking to grasp how this contributes to lowering emissions, whether the concept is simply that immersing a data center in water cools it, leading to a decrease in carbon emissions? Or, is the thought process that situating it beneath the sea eliminates emissions in the conventional sense we're accustomed to?

Paresh Dave notes that while emissions may not be entirely eliminated, the aspiration is for entities like NetworkOcean to utilize wind energy for their operations. Additionally, the utilization of seawater for cooling purposes could significantly lower the necessity for other cooling methods, thereby decreasing overall energy consumption. This approach, which leverages both wind power and natural cooling, aims to substantially diminish the environmental impact of subaquatic data centers.

Lauren Goode: Understood. So, essentially, you're developing a solution for the data center that requires little to no electricity, which in turn, cuts down on emissions.

Paresh Dave: Absolutely.

Reece Rogers: The consumption of water plays a significant role here, as it's not merely about individual usage for personal hygiene or similar activities. The process involves turning the water into vapor, which then enters the atmosphere, potentially impacting surrounding areas. The concept of submerging it aims to prevent the evaporation by instead warming the adjacent sea water.

Lauren Goode: Understood. Alright. Given these authorization challenges, what does the future hold for a company such as NetworkOcean?

Paresh Dave mentioned that a certain company has established data centers across Southeast Asia. While details about their precise locations were not disclosed, the company affirmed that they have completed the necessary permitting processes without causing adverse environmental effects. Currently, they are developing additional projects and are specifically targeting areas that are already environmentally degraded. This approach implies that any potential environmental impact from their operations would occur in locations less sensitive to further damage.

A firm based in China has developed underwater data centers. They haven't replied to our inquiries, making it difficult to determine their exact plans. However, it's clear that various businesses are exploring this avenue and recognize its potential. Given the ongoing energy challenges facing data centers, we anticipate a surge in innovative solutions. We're eager to continue monitoring these developments closely.

Michael Calore: Okay, Paresh and Reece, we're eagerly anticipating all your upcoming articles on underwater data facilities. Let's pause for a moment and we'll return shortly.

It seems like you

Michael Calore: So, NetworkOcean is among a number of new ventures or organizations striving to lessen the environmental toll of generative AI, as we've just covered. However, what I'm really curious about is the actual extent of the damage generative AI poses to our planet. There's considerable buzz and numerous reports on the subject, but could you give us an overview of the situation? How fast are we heading towards an environmental disaster by adopting these AI technologies?

Reece Rogers: I'd say it could happen quite swiftly, possibly.

Michael Calore: Oh, dear.

Reece Rogers: Not long ago, I authored an article discussing our current phase of excessive internet usage, highlighting the significant computational demands of AI data centers and generative AI activities compared to a conventional Google search. However, despite these AI infrastructures consuming a considerable amount of resources, they represent only a minor fraction of our total consumption when placed beside sectors like construction, industrial production, and oil processing. Although their share is relatively minor, it's important to note that it is growing steadily.

This raises several concerns. Even with relatively low overall numbers, the presence of data centers can significantly affect local areas. This can lead to increased utility bills and put considerable pressure on local power grids. Additionally, these centers are responsible for the evaporation of vast amounts of water from local sources. While this water does eventually return to the atmosphere, it lingers there for some time. Another critical point to consider is the claim that these centers contribute to solving the climate crisis, a notion I find questionable. A notable article by Karen Hao in The Atlantic highlighted how Microsoft is promoting AI tools to fossil fuel companies to enhance their extraction processes. This approach hardly seems to align with environmental sustainability.

Michael Calore: Negative.

Lauren Goode: The issue at hand extends beyond just the volume of searches we conduct on Google Gemini or the number of conversations we engage with ChatGPT. It encompasses the entire spectrum, from our interaction level down to the data centers we've discussed, and even further to the GPUs and various hardware components that drive these massive data centers. The consideration of these hardware suppliers varies among tech companies, with some acknowledging their role and others not. Could you delve into this topic a bit more?

Paresh Dave: Indeed, one significant hurdle, besides what's already mentioned, is the limited number of providers in the market which results in a high concentration. Essentially, only a handful of companies are responsible for producing servers, chips, and network equipment, leading to a lack of competitive dynamics. These few companies that are pivotal in constructing data centers and integrating this hardware have been attempting to influence manufacturers to innovate towards lower carbon solutions and streamline supply chains, as I've come to understand. However, the consumer demand is escalating at an unprecedented rate, outpacing the available resources, equipment, and data center capacities. In this frantic scramble to fulfill the burgeoning needs, there's scarcely any opportunity for these entities to pause and enhance the supply chains you mentioned, Lauren.

Michael Calore expresses a keen interest in understanding the strategies major companies are adopting to manage the energy consumption of their emerging AI technologies, which are being rapidly adopted and highly anticipated by the public. He highlights the widespread enthusiasm for advancements like the latest versions of ChatGPT and Gemini, noting that while not literally everyone, a significant majority of the audience they interact with shares this excitement. Calore is particularly concerned about how a company like Google is preparing to support the increased demand on its servers, especially in light of the ambitious carbon neutrality ambitions it set before the advent of this new wave of AI technology.

Paresh Dave highlights a trend among companies such as Microsoft and OpenAI, which, due to insufficient energy supplies for their data centers and artificial intelligence operations, are resorting to less environmentally friendly energy sources. This includes the revival of nuclear power and coal-fired plants to fulfill their requirements, a development that raises environmental concerns.

I'm intrigued to see how companies encourage their users, particularly businesses utilizing their cloud services, to potentially plan specific tasks. For instance, in the scenario of producing a major Hollywood film in the future, will companies prompt users to perform this task during times when their data centers are predominantly powered by solar energy? This could reduce reliance on coal or nuclear power. Additionally, it's interesting to consider whether companies will provide consumers with enough information to make environmentally conscious decisions. For example, I might decide to delay a non-urgent Gemini search until it can be powered by solar energy. Just last week, I spent 45 minutes creating an image, making various edits without any urgency. Looking back, I wonder if I conducted this task at an inopportune time, potentially contributing to unnecessary emissions.

Michael Calore: And Paresh-

Lauren Goode: Hang on a second, wait.

Michael Calore: Excuse me?

Lauren Goode: We need to inquire Paresh about the image. Who dedicates 45 minutes to a single photograph?

Michael Calore: Paresh, can you tell us about the image you took 45 minutes to create?

Paresh Dave revealed his experience with a new feature introduced at Google's latest Pixel event. Google demonstrated the capability of their image generator on the Pixel, specifically for crafting event invitations. Curious, Dave attempted a similar task using ChatGPT and encountered some challenges. He humorously noted the software's spelling issues and its tendency to replace removed elements with new ones, contrary to his instructions. Despite his efforts, Dave remained unimpressed with the outcome but expressed a willingness to share his experience in the future.

Michael Calore points out an important observation, especially with the latest launch of smartphones, including the newest models of Pixel phones and iPhones. These devices come equipped with advanced artificial intelligence features and creative tools for image generation, like Apple's "Image Playground." With millions engaging with these technologies, it's clear society is quickly integrating them into everyday life, often without much contemplation. Unlike Paresh, who thoughtfully intends to use such features only when they're powered by renewable sources like solar energy, Calore suggests that the vast majority, perhaps 98%, aren't likely to consider the environmental impact of their digital activities.

Paresh Dave expressed, "That's the primary worry."

Reece Rogers: It feels almost imposed upon you. There's no necessity to go out of your way to get the ChatGPT application or seek out these technologies. Simply logging into Facebook, you're bombarded with requests to "Please, please utilize Meta AI." It seems almost unavoidable.

Lauren Goode: The silver lining, albeit a thin one, could be that this situation has heightened our awareness of how much energy the internet consumes. Honestly, the energy demands of these data centers and the extent of natural resources they utilize hadn't really crossed my mind until more recently, definitely within the last decade, and even more so in the past five or six years. Currently, with the advent of generative AI, which is gradually consuming a larger portion of the energy used by data centers, this issue is becoming a hot topic of discussion. It's causing me to reflect on it more seriously.

Michael Calore reminisced that his last moment of contemplation on this topic was sparked by a revelation approximately 15 years ago regarding the launch of a new iMac. This model was notably celebrated for its impressively minimal energy consumption while in standby mode. Calore found himself intrigued by the promise of a minor, yet tangible, reduction in his monthly electricity expenses, humorously noting it could shave off about 60 cents. He candidly admitted that this instance marked the final occasion he pondered over the energy and power demands of computing.

Lauren Goode: Exactly, or we considered it in a concrete way, you know, in terms of repair: is it possible to extend the life of this device beyond what I initially planned? Can I ensure its longevity to prevent it from becoming waste?

Paresh Dave highlighted that the details Mike mentioned are quite intricate. However, he pointed out that for consumers, especially in areas like California where solar energy is prevalent, the cost of energy itself has become almost negligible. The main expense now lies in the delivery of this energy, which could be a consistent charge. Despite the minimal impact on individual finances, Dave emphasized that the environmental cost of online activities still affects the collective ecological budget, making it challenging to address these concerns.

Michael Calore: Alright, after discussing this for a while, what's our consensus? Are we ready to quit creating Genmoji?

Lauren Goode: To be honest, despite my role as a senior tech writer at WIRED, I rarely make use of these technologies. I don't habitually turn to ChatGPT or frequently engage with Google Gemini. However, I did explore a novel generative AI application named SocialAI recently, and it got me thinking… The application solely involves interactions with automated bots. That's the entire experience, without any human interaction. And my thought was, "This feels somewhat meaningless and quite draining in terms of energy."

My growing concern centers around the realization that it's not just the prominent forms of generative AI consuming significant energy. A report by MIT Tech Review a few years back shed light on the energy demands of generative AI, highlighting that even commonplace features like recommendation algorithms in daily apps require substantial computing power, thus increasing energy consumption. It's the mundane, everyday applications embedded with AI, not limited to tasks like creating unique party invitations or generating images of fantastical animals, that accumulate our digital footprint. Essentially, our routine online activities reflect our extractive impact on the planet.

Reece Rogers expresses that from his perspective, the issue at hand doesn't solely rest on individual responsibility. He argues that utilizing a vast number of generative AI tools doesn't weigh heavily on his conscience, even with their potential environmental impact, because these technologies are produced and distributed on a massive scale by corporations. Rogers believes that the onus of mitigating environmental harm lies with the entities that develop and operate the infrastructure for generative AI, rather than individuals refraining from using these tools. He advocates for holding these companies accountable for their environmental footprint, suggesting that personal abstention from using specific AI technologies, such as meta AI, is unlikely to make a significant difference in environmental conservation efforts.

Lauren Goode: Nicely put.

Michael Calore: Nicely put.

Lauren Goode: Reece essentially echoed my thoughts, but in a way that was more concise and straightforward.

Michael Calore: Okay, let's make sure everyone gets a link to this episode so that we can… I assured everyone I wouldn't give them a lecture, but I never said I wouldn't coax them into using these tools with responsibility.

Lauren Goode: Paresh, what's your take on this?

Paresh Dave suggests that while individual accountability plays a role, there is a glimmer of hope due to emerging startups focused on enhancing the energy efficiency of recommendation and advertising algorithms. These startups are aware of the environmental impact caused by their previous ventures, which heavily relied on resource extraction. They are now aiming to develop technologies that are still reliant on resource extraction but are striving to minimize the environmental toll. Dave also highlights how technology companies are actively encouraging their suppliers to improve the energy efficiency of their data centers.

From my perspective, as someone involved in the media, what we're really seeking is greater openness regarding these matters. A while back, I covered a piece on CoreWeave, an AI data center firm, which had internally committed to producing a report detailing their environmental impact and energy consumption. However, as of a few months back, we're still in anticipation of this report. Our goal is simply to gain a deeper insight into the issue, enabling us to explore and talk about possible solutions.

Michael Calore: Okay, it seems that each person has the autonomy to determine the extent and manner in which they reduce their carbon emissions. With all the necessary details at your disposal, you're free to act as you please. How does that sound?

Lauren Goode: Assistance for readers.

Michael Calore: Assistance for readers.

Lauren Goode: Audio platform assistance.

Michael Calore: We'll pause here for another short break, and upon returning, share our suggestions with you.

—

Unfortunately, without

Michael Calore: Okay, Paresh, you're up. Could you share your suggestion with us, please?

Paresh Dave expressed a straightforward tip: Borrow cookbooks from your local library, either by visiting in person or accessing them online. This idea hadn't occurred to him until the previous week. Though he found himself slightly let down by one of the recipes he tried, which he initially discovered online and later realized was from a cookbook, he still found value in the concept. Dave highlighted the benefit of accessing these cookbooks without the need for subscribing to online services, particularly when encountering a recipe on a site he was unfamiliar with and uncertain he'd revisit. His rationale was, instead of paying for a subscription, why not just borrow the book? This could also provide the opportunity to explore other enticing recipes within the book he plans to try soon. Dave intends to share his experiences with these recipes in the near future. In essence, he advocates for making use of library cookbooks.

Michael Calore: Could it have been a pizza stuck together with

Paresh Dave clarified that the book was not created by ChatGPT.

Michael Calore: I borrow cookbooks from my nearby library and it's fantastic, as it gives me the chance to test out the cookbook to determine if I'd like to purchase it.

Paresh Dave expressed concerns over the ease with which one can obtain recipes from an online cookbook by simply taking screenshots. He pondered whether applications should permit the capturing of screens, highlighting an intriguing dilemma.

Michael Calore: Okay, we can address that topic another time. However, I appreciate your suggestion; it's excellent. Reece, what would you suggest?

Reece Rogers: This week, I've been completely hooked on the soundtrack from the first Twilight film. Regardless of opinions on the Twilight series, the music lineup is undeniably fantastic, filled with hit after hit. It features tracks like Muse's Supermassive Black Hole, Paramore's Decode, and Blue Foundation's Eyes on Fire. As the seasons shift, this playlist is staying on repeat for me until the end of fall.

Lauren Goode: Is the Christina Perry track included in this as well?

Reece Rogers: In my opinion, yes.

Lauren Goode: Wow, seriously? I mean, really?

Reece Rogers: It's fantastic. I feel like it's autumn. This film is definitely on my list to watch. I'm aware it's a bit over the top and not great, but I just have a fondness for it.

Lauren Goode: That seems reasonable.

Michael Calore: It seems those glittering vampires always come out on top. All right, let's swiftly transition away from that topic. Lauren, what do you suggest?

Lauren Goode: I want to express my gratitude to Mike for suggesting Industry on HBO Max in your recent recommendation. I began watching it this weekend, and it has completely captivated me.

Michael Calore: Interesting. Elaborate, please.

Lauren Goode suggests revisiting last week's episode, encourages leaving a review, and highlights Mike's synopsis of the series. She's captivated by the drama surrounding a group of young finance professionals in London at Pierpoint & Co., where the environment is fiercely competitive. The initial six months serve as an intense evaluation period for the new employees, culminating in a decisive moment where they learn whether they secure a permanent position or face abrupt termination. The first season delivers a thrilling mix of high stakes, intense dynamics, sexual undercurrents, extravagant parties, and substance use. Currently engaged with the second season, Goode expresses anticipation for the unfolding events, already deeply invested in the storyline.

Michael Calore: The momentum sustains.

Lauren Goode: Indeed, there's only so much binge-watching we can do while still keeping up with our great careers and personal lives.

Michael Calore: So, Paresh has suggested recipes perfect for the autumn season, Reece has put forward some great autumnal tracks. You, on the other hand, have recommended financial experts for the fall.

Lauren Goode: Or people in banking. Terrible attempt at humor, I know.

Paresh Dave: Exactly right, spot on. I want to give a quick mention to The Black Cat Substack, created by a previous technology reporter, which offered a compelling breakdown of Harper, one of the show's characters, from last week.

Lauren Goode: Oh, I'm definitely going to look into that.

Michael Calore: Pleasant.

Lauren Goode: Absolutely. There are numerous themes present. For those who follow WIRED or tune into this podcast due to an interest in Silicon Valley's concept of meritocracy, you'll find that Industry also explores many themes related to this idea.

Michael Calore: Absolutely.

Lauren Goode: Indeed. Mike, what do you suggest?

Michael Calore suggests an engaging read from a partner publication within Condé Nast, featured in the latest edition of The New Yorker. Authored by Anna Weiner, the piece is titled "The Art of Taking It Slow" and presents a detailed look into the life and philosophy of Grant Petersen, the mind behind Rivendell Bicycle Company. Petersen crafts exquisite, albeit premium-priced, steel-frame bikes in the Bay Area and holds what might be considered old-fashioned but endearing opinions about the bike industry. For those who have recently ventured into bike shopping or know someone passionate about cycling, the current trend leans heavily towards high performance, speed, and competitive cycling, complete with Lycra outfits, ambitious weekend rides, and a focus on apps like Strava. Petersen's perspective offers a contrasting, more leisurely approach to cycling.

His approach is essentially to avoid overcomplicating things. Simply enjoy biking as if you were a child again. Utilize it for running errands or for leisure. Keep a relaxed posture. Dress in whatever feels right, opting for practical attire. He has become an idol to a community who shares his enthusiasm for biking, almost reaching a cult-like admiration. He is their leader, their mentor. This article delves into his life story. It reveals how he came to adopt this mindset, how he grew his modest bicycle business into a venture that's now thriving after decades in the industry. Furthermore, it beautifully captures the experience of cycling through the rolling landscapes of Northern California.

Lauren Goode: Heading out for a bike ride in the fall?

Michael Calore mentioned that while the piece suggests a fall setting for cycling, it appears to have been composed during summer, indicated by references to extremely high temperatures. This is a common scenario in inland Northern California, where it frequently reaches over 100 degrees Fahrenheit well into mid-October.

Lauren Goode: And we circle back to the topic of climate.

Michael Calore: We appreciate your attention. Should you wish to share your thoughts, our social media details are available in the show notes. Boone Ashworth is the one behind the production. Expect another episode from us in two weeks. Until we meet again, farewell.

[Outro music from Gadget Lab starts playing]

Check Out Also …

Directly to your email: A selection of the top and most unique tales from the vault of WIRED.

Elon Musk poses a threat to national security

Conversation: Meredith Whittaker Aims to Disprove Capitalistic Norms

What's the solution to a challenge like Polestar?

Occasion: Don't miss out on The Major Interview happening on December 3rd in San Francisco.

WIRED PROMOTIONS

Get a 10% Discount on Turbo Tax Live Assistance

Discounts and Promotions from H&R Block

Get a $15 Discount on Your Purchases Using an Instacart Promo Code

Dyson Airwrap Offer: Complimentary $60 Case and $40 Bonus Gift

Enjoy Additional Savings Up To 45% During Our September Sale

Vista Print Discount Code: Save 20% on Certain Signs

Additional Content from WIRED

Insights and Tutorials

© 2024 Condé Nast. All rights reserved. Purchases made through our website may result in WIRED receiving a share of the sale as part of our Affiliate Partnerships with retail partners. The content on this website is protected and cannot be copied, shared, distributed, or used in any form without prior written consent from Condé Nast. Ad Choices

Choose a global website