Save The Planet
-
I'm really OOTL when it comes to AI GHG impact. How is it any worse than crypto farms, or streaming services?
How do their outputs stack up to traditional emitters like Ag and industry? I need a measuring stick
wrote on last edited by [email protected]The UC paper above touches on that. I will link a better one if I find it.
But specifically:
streaming services
Almost all the power from this is from internet infrastructure and the end device. Encoding videos (for them to be played thousands/millions of times) is basically free since its only done once, with the exception being YouTube (which is still very efficient). Storage servers can handle tons of clients (hence they're dirt cheap), and (last I heard) Netflix even uses local cache boxes to shorten the distance.
TBH it must be less per capita than CRTs. Old TVs burned power like crazy.
-
First off let me say, thanks for having this conversation, I'm enjoying it.
Educational holidays are a concession and would have to be tested. So holiday goers would have to show they're attending lectures and visiting sites for the bulk of their visit. I honestly haven't fleshed out the idea as I just came up with it.
But to talk about tourism, I think it was Prague that was able to showcase just how damaging tourism truly is. The city centre has miniscule local residency due to properties being brought up to lease as Airbnbs. With businesses attempting to target tourists, prices of food and travel increased and you know what didn't go up wages. So people were forced to move out of the city and commute in just to serve tourists things they can't afford. During tourist season, it's vibrant and busy, off-season it's a ghost town. The citizens aren't benefiting, it's exactly the opposite. Tourism is just imperialism flexing its muscles.
Absolutely! Like I said, this is a topic I've always struggled with, and I've leaned both ways. I just so happen to be leaning on the side of recreational air travel this week lol.
The example with Prague strikes me as rooted in capitalism, not so much tourism. Like, ideally governments (local or otherwise) in tourist-heavy areas step in and implement things that address those capitalistic problems you describe - penalize rental property conglomerates, enforce a liveable minimum wage, build affordable permanent housing and mixed-use spaces, etc. I hear your comparison between tourism and imperialism, and I get that some tourist areas are pretty awful where the local residents are treated as subhuman and that definitely sucks, but idk, it feels more like a capitalist/classist issue to me.
-
I'm really OOTL when it comes to AI GHG impact. How is it any worse than crypto farms, or streaming services?
How do their outputs stack up to traditional emitters like Ag and industry? I need a measuring stick
Also, one other thing is that Nvidia clocks their GPUs (aka the world's AI accelerators) very inefficiently, because they have a pseudo monopoly, and they can.
It doesn't have to be this way, and likely wont in the future.
-
It's closer to running 8 high-end video games at once. Sure, from a scale perspective it's further removed from training, but it's still fairly expensive.
nice name btw
-
Just like screens in cars, and MASSIVE trucks. We don't want this. Well, some dumbass Americans do, but intelligent people don't need a 32 ton 6 wheel drive pickup to haul jr to soccer.
Massive trucks? They need those trucks for truck stuff, like this giant dilhole parking with his wife to go to Aldi today. Not even a flag on the end of that ladder, it filled a whole spot by itself.
My couch wouldn't fit in that bed, and every giant truck I see is sparkling shiny and looks like it hasn't done a day of hard labor, much like the drivers.
-
Climate change is unstoppable. Humanity is mostly doomed very, very soon.
So, fuck y'all, my two window units are running 24/7 @ 69F for the foreseeable future.
If by "climate change" you mean societal climate, then yes, i'd see your point. Society feels more angry year after year, it's definitely heating up.
If you mean "climate change" as is typically understood, then no. The solar revolution is progressing quite swiftly. We're probably gonna reduce CO2 emissions by 50% in 2032 (my personal guess).
-
Classic neo-liberalism - privatize the benefits, socialize the costs.
Corporations : "We should get to gobble all power with our projects... and you should have the personal responsibility to reduce power usage even though it would - at best - only improve things at the very edges of the margins... and then we can get away with whatever we want."
Just like with paper straws. You get crappy straws and they hope you feel like you're helping the environment (even though the plastic straws account for like 0.00002% of plastic waste generated) ... meanwhile 80% of the actual pollution and waste being generated by like 12 corporations gets to continue.
I feel like i've read a very similar argument somewhere recently, but i have difficulty remembering it precisely. It went something like this:
- If a company kills 5 people, it was either an accident, an unfortunate mishap, a necessity of war (in case of the weapons industry) or some other bullshit excuse.
- If the people threaten to kill 5 billionaires, they're charged with "terrorism" (see Luigi Mangione's case).
-
This post did not contain any content.
What are you talking about? I can run pocket pall localy on my phone, and I have this:
-
For the same reason we want to subsidize solar production in residential construction even though it's more efficient and cost-productive to do it at-scale. Having energy production and storage at the point of use reduces strain on power infrastructure and helps alleviate the types of load surging ayyy is talking about.
It's not a replacement for modernizing our power grids, too - it simply helps to make them more resilient.
That's understandable but do we need it now? Neither pv nor batteries last forever. I'm just not sure if we need them now (or short-medium term future). But I'm not in the position to decide upon it
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote on last edited by [email protected]
We're going away folks, and nothing of any true value will be lost, except all the species that did live in homeostasis with the Earth that we're taking with us in our species' avarice induced murder-suicide
-
What are you talking about? I can run pocket pall localy on my phone, and I have this:
Nwm, Lemmy being Lamey by not allowing the image to load.
-
nice name btw
-
How about, fuck AI, end story.
I did, as a matter of fact, fuck AI.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I tried to make an image of a woman with 5 tits but got distracted and got married to a rock
-
This post did not contain any content.
5 tits, that's awesome.
-
I am agreeing with you that the solutions exist, but the will to implement them is going to be the hard part. A big dampener is simply going to be the profit motive. There is more money in siding with the data center than a the households. Are households okay with an increasing in price? Data center is likely to manage that better, or even just pay a bribe to someone. I used food as another example of a problem that is solved. We can grow food without fail and build the rail to get it to where it needs. We just don't because need does not match profit expectation. There are talks of building nuclear power for some data centers, but such talk would not happen for normal households.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]People definitely underestimate how cooperative big tech is relative to every other business mostly because big tech has a lot of money and very few expenses so friction is relatively a bigger bottle neck than almost any other industry. So I still think that pressuring openAi into green energy is easier than pressuring Volvo (or any manufacturer) which already is really brittle and has huge negotiation leverage in the form of jobs it provides.
Take a look at any other business niche and no one's comitting to green energy other than big tech. As you said yourself no other niche want to build their own nuclear reactors to satisfy their own green energy need.
I think its OK to hate on big tech because they're billionaires but people really lose sight here and complain about wrong things that distract from real much bigger issues and paints the entire movement as idiots.
-
That's understandable but do we need it now? Neither pv nor batteries last forever. I'm just not sure if we need them now (or short-medium term future). But I'm not in the position to decide upon it
I don't know how to answer that question.
-
The truck owners I know, myself included, use them all the time for towing and like the added utility having the bed as as secondary feature.
Then you put it beside a truck from 30 years ago that's a quarter the overall size but has the same bed capacity and towing power along with much better visibility instead of not being able to see the child you're about to run over. And then you understand what people mean when they say massive trucks - giant ridiculously unnecessary things that are all about being a status symbol and dodging regulations rather than practicality.
Absolutely 100% incorrect on towing. The 95 top f150 towed about 7700 compared to 13500 today. That's an f350 in 95. It'll also fit a family of 4 comparable to a full size sedan eliminating any need of a secondary vehicle. The old f150/1500s were miserable in the back.
As for the safety I find the argument disingenuous not based on reality. Roughly 160 kids were killed in 23 with the EU27. It was 220 in the US. Much of that could be correlated to traffic density as well.
Country / Region Est. Fatalities/Year Child Pop. (0–14) Fatalities per Million
United States ~225 ~61 million ~3.7
United Kingdom ~22 ~11.5 million ~1.9
Canada ~12 ~6 million ~2.0
Australia ~11 ~4.8 million ~2.3
Germany ~20 ~11 million ~1.8
France ~18 ~11 million ~1.6
Japan ~18 ~15 million ~1.2
India ~3,000 (est.) ~360 million ~8.3
Brazil ~450 ~50 million ~9.0
European Union (EU-27) ~140–160 ~72 million ~2.0–2.2I think we should offer incentives for manufacturers to start reducing size and weight, but things you are saying here aren't really based off of any data nor was it what I was asking.
I just wish I could find one person to show me what they are referencing when they repeat that seemingly false fact.
-
I should have figured the Rick and Morty episode was a reference to something.
Makes me think about South Park and watching it as it aired when I was a kid. There were so many things I missed because I hadn’t seen any of the source material for a lot of the jokes.
Watching it all again 25 years later and damn, even better the second time around when you’ve seen all the shit they’re parodying.
I didn't know Rick and Morty referenced this but I shouldn't be surprised.
Same here with the missed references. It makes rewatching older content not just nostalgic but also a fun discovery. -
I tried to make an image of a woman with 5 tits but got distracted and got married to a rock
That looks like fun. How do I play that AI?
