“I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid that computation is too carbon intensive”(shkspr.mobi)
shkspr.mobi
“I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid that computation is too carbon intensive”
https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2024/02/im-sorry-dave-im-afraid-that-computation-is-too-carbon-intensive/
84 comments
And make sense energy wise. Sun is strong at day and sometimes there is strong wind ... sometimes none of both. But the main computation is done already, or soon mainly on GPUs. And there is the limiting factor currently not energy, but avaiable GPUs. So you want what you have to run 24h.
I am not sure if CPU tasks can make a huge difference. At least CPU tasks that are not needed now.
I am not sure if CPU tasks can make a huge difference. At least CPU tasks that are not needed now.
The return of batch(1)?
There's no need to involve carbon here - there is a reason to adjust the time of power consumption due to cost, as at least in certain places the price of electricity during a single day can vary between near-zero to very expensive.
And if certain mixes of generation are "too carbon intensive" then the same pricing is the proper mechanism to get electricity users to take it into account; apply a subsidy or tax depending on how polluting some generation is, and then let the market forces optimize which things can wait until a "cleaner hour" and for which it is worth to pay more to not wait.
And if certain mixes of generation are "too carbon intensive" then the same pricing is the proper mechanism to get electricity users to take it into account; apply a subsidy or tax depending on how polluting some generation is, and then let the market forces optimize which things can wait until a "cleaner hour" and for which it is worth to pay more to not wait.
I wish there was also this environmental HAL for golf field, yachts, private jets and meat consumption
While the usage per capita shoots up for the very rich, a huger fraction of CO2 output is from those below them, not exactly the poorest but people in the middle. Per capita doesn't help, you could execute the very rich tomorrow and still have irreversible climate change in 10 years.
It's less the absolute effect and more the feeling of "why should our lives be made significantly less convenient while those with seemingly unlimited wealth and power get to pollute as much as they like?"
If you want regular people to care more about the environment and pollute less, than you should have the rich and powerful lead by example, not push laws that seemingly do nothing while acting as wasteful as ever.
If you want regular people to care more about the environment and pollute less, than you should have the rich and powerful lead by example, not push laws that seemingly do nothing while acting as wasteful as ever.
> Per capita doesn't help, you could execute the very rich tomorrow and still have irreversible climate change in 10 years.
The thing is, getting rid of the very rich and their indulgence in climate-devastating actions moves the goalposts/acceptable excuses for the lower classes ("but the rich are doing it too") as well.
The thing is, getting rid of the very rich and their indulgence in climate-devastating actions moves the goalposts/acceptable excuses for the lower classes ("but the rich are doing it too") as well.
Maybe there’s some term or phrase for this, but I feel like those being wasteful aren’t gonna change because suddenly the goal post is moved.
Maybe I’m too pessimistic, but I feel like most human behavior we decide what we are gonna do and then find the reasons to justify it.
Maybe I’m too pessimistic, but I feel like most human behavior we decide what we are gonna do and then find the reasons to justify it.
> per capita shoots up for the very rich
This can be huge population. US CO2 output per capita is pretty big even if you compare it with EU.
This can be huge population. US CO2 output per capita is pretty big even if you compare it with EU.
I care less about the environment than I do authoritarians being in power.
Then out a carbon tax on those things. I can’t bring myself to care because I know individual choice isn’t enough. It’s a global systems problem.
It's pretty amazing how the same people who insist on the paper straws in their little plastic bags get so triggered when you mention reducing meat consumption. It's like they just won't survive if they can't have some taste of body parts every single meal.
People who care about plastic waste has better alternatives than paper. Reusable metal straws (the large ones) are superior to both paper and plastic straws, with the only draw side that you got to wash them as any other reusable eating utensils.
The main reason why plastic eating utensils are common is that it reduces the labor costs of serving food, which in turn allow fast food restaurants to charge lower price.
Reusable travel utensils and reusable drinking cups seems to also gained some traction for drivers, an otherwise large consumer of single-use utensils. A bit more work but far superior to paper and plastic in their feel and use.
(I prefer both utensils made from metal and eating meat. Eating meat with plastic utensils is just a terrible experience. Being against plastic has nothing to do with food culture or diet).
The main reason why plastic eating utensils are common is that it reduces the labor costs of serving food, which in turn allow fast food restaurants to charge lower price.
Reusable travel utensils and reusable drinking cups seems to also gained some traction for drivers, an otherwise large consumer of single-use utensils. A bit more work but far superior to paper and plastic in their feel and use.
(I prefer both utensils made from metal and eating meat. Eating meat with plastic utensils is just a terrible experience. Being against plastic has nothing to do with food culture or diet).
> People who care about plastic waste has better alternatives than paper.
Best alternative is no straw.
Best alternative is no straw.
This feels like a (paper) straw man - there's probably a lot of overlap between people that intentionally reduce or eliminate meat consumption and also worry about plastic waste/pollution. Similarly there is probably a lot of overlap in terms of people that don't care about either. There are probably some people that worry about plastic waste more than the negative impact of meat consumption, but it's probably one of the smaller sections on that venn diagram.
meat consumption, particularly beef is the easiest way to be healthy and get complete nutrition. veganism is impractical for almost everyone and requires a lot of careful balance of nutritional intake as well as supplementation to stay healthy. For some nutrients, stores in your body are built up and deplete over long periods of time (years). Many classes of diseases completely go away just by eating plenty of meat.
I’m interested in learning what disease beef cures that beans do not provide any nutritional benefits towards solving as well. Or that could not also be supplemented to provide a diet that is equally healthy to beef consumption.
If the costs (environmental, health, or money-wise) are a major factor in your choice of diet, it seems clear that beans provide more for less.
If the costs (environmental, health, or money-wise) are a major factor in your choice of diet, it seems clear that beans provide more for less.
Iron, for one. Beans contain iron but so little of it that you’d have to consume 1.2kg to get your recommended daily intake. Similarly for a lot of other essential minerals.
This suggests that kidney beans have a higher iron to calorie ratio than beef does.
https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/resources/2020-2025-dietar...
https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/resources/2020-2025-dietar...
Iron is not protein. You can get protein from many sources but iron is very difficult to get from a vegan diet.
GP just posted a table showing there is more iron in non-meat sources than in meat sources.
Iron is not an issue for any vegan I know. Spinach, beans, kale, etc are all super loaded with it.
See my other reply on the differences between heme and non-heme iron. You can’t just compare the mg figures listed on those tables. Many vegans and vegetarians test positive for iron deficiency [1].
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6367879/
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6367879/
FWIW the exact same thing is true of protein. Most people just think protein = protein, but it's not. Protein digestibility and amino acid balance vary radically, but tends to be very poor in non-meat sources. There's a table of scores for various foods here. [1] You can find the DIAAS score for most any food with a quick search.
So for example, fava beans are called high protein. 200g of fava beans has 220 calories, 15g protein, and a digestibility of 0.55. 200g of chicken breast has 220 calories, 46g of protein, and a digestibility of 1.08. You're getting about 6x as much protein in the chicken breast there. If somebody wants to maintain a relatively high protein diet, they're simply not going to be able to do that on a vegan/vegetarian diet unless they just start downing endless protein powder shakes.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digestible_Indispensable_Amino...
So for example, fava beans are called high protein. 200g of fava beans has 220 calories, 15g protein, and a digestibility of 0.55. 200g of chicken breast has 220 calories, 46g of protein, and a digestibility of 1.08. You're getting about 6x as much protein in the chicken breast there. If somebody wants to maintain a relatively high protein diet, they're simply not going to be able to do that on a vegan/vegetarian diet unless they just start downing endless protein powder shakes.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digestible_Indispensable_Amino...
Eh, the difference isn't that big imo.
Tofu e.g. has DIAAS of 0.97 and ~18g protein per 100g (checked the one in my fridge). If you really need a lot of protein, you can just cook stuff with tvp, that usually has dry 50% protein, but I've seen also seen 75%. You basically hydrate it with water, add a bunch of spices cook, and eat it with whatever else you'd like.
I don't think there is a big difference for the average consumer, consider some processed stuff:
Protein/100g from the products on the rewe online store:
Vegan Nuggets: 9, 11, 3x13, 15, 17
Chicken Nuggets: 2x12, 13, 2x15, 16
Beef Burger: 17, 2x18
Vegan Burger: 10, 13, 2x14, 3x17
Salami: 3x21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26
Vegan Salami: 2x8, 29, 32, 2x33
Reguarding DIAAS, soy and pea protein seem to be the most used and have 0.89 and 0.82 DIAAS respectively.
Tofu e.g. has DIAAS of 0.97 and ~18g protein per 100g (checked the one in my fridge). If you really need a lot of protein, you can just cook stuff with tvp, that usually has dry 50% protein, but I've seen also seen 75%. You basically hydrate it with water, add a bunch of spices cook, and eat it with whatever else you'd like.
I don't think there is a big difference for the average consumer, consider some processed stuff:
Protein/100g from the products on the rewe online store:
Vegan Nuggets: 9, 11, 3x13, 15, 17
Chicken Nuggets: 2x12, 13, 2x15, 16
Beef Burger: 17, 2x18
Vegan Burger: 10, 13, 2x14, 3x17
Salami: 3x21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26
Vegan Salami: 2x8, 29, 32, 2x33
Reguarding DIAAS, soy and pea protein seem to be the most used and have 0.89 and 0.82 DIAAS respectively.
This depends on dietary preferences. I prefer not to touch processed stuff, vegan or not, because that also introduces a million other new health issues and variables. For instance even with something as simple as pea protein you're looking at countless viable issues depending on exactly how it was processed. There's an entire paper on it here. [1] That paper is painfully unreadable and I link to it only to emphasize the complexities involved in processing food.
My issue is pretty simple. A quick look around the world today, compared to how things were not that long ago, shows we're probably not only moving way too fast in terms of changing what we consume, but we also seem to be going very much in the wrong direction. So my main focus in diet is sticking with what worked in the past.
[1] - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B97818...
My issue is pretty simple. A quick look around the world today, compared to how things were not that long ago, shows we're probably not only moving way too fast in terms of changing what we consume, but we also seem to be going very much in the wrong direction. So my main focus in diet is sticking with what worked in the past.
[1] - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B97818...
The page that I linked is about iron, but when I wrote my message I accidentally said "protein". I corrected my post, thanks for the catch.
Vegetable sources of iron are called non-heme iron, in contrast to meat which is heme iron. Heme iron is readily absorbed and used by the body whereas non-heme iron is not [1]. Note that this applies to humans, not other animals. Cows are far better at absorbing these nutrients from plant sources than we are.
[1] https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/iron/
[1] https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/iron/
Iron is a nutrient, not a disease. The grandparent comment mentioned a disease that beef consumption cures that non-beef protein sources such as beans do not.
Beans have a very imbalanced amino acid profile. Protein is a category, not something specific. You need enough of every amino acid. Beef already has the correct ratio of for you. Beans do not, and also have worse absorption of what amino acids they do have. So you need to eat much, much more of them to get the same nutrition you get with some lean meat, which can also often lead to weight gain due to excess carbohydrate absorption.
The only way to get a balance on a vegetable only diet involves mixing different veggies and supplements in order to try to level the ratio of amino acids and vitamins you get. It's very complicated and honestly is difficult to get right consistently even if you know what you're doing, the average person will not be able to do this right and will get sick.
If everyone is pushed onto that kind of diet most people will do it wrong, and a lot of people will get sick as is already very common in people who try veganism. I would argue you need to have significantly above average intelligence to do it right. So at the moment a healthy large population requires a lot of meat.
I didn't say "disease" i said class of diseases, there are a lot. lysine deficiency, osteoporosis, some kinds of arthritis on the amino acid end. And then there's the vitamins that beef always has, which wipes out a huge class of vitamin deficiencies... it's hard to understate how important meat is... reducing meat consumption is a very, very bad idea for public health.
The only way to get a balance on a vegetable only diet involves mixing different veggies and supplements in order to try to level the ratio of amino acids and vitamins you get. It's very complicated and honestly is difficult to get right consistently even if you know what you're doing, the average person will not be able to do this right and will get sick.
If everyone is pushed onto that kind of diet most people will do it wrong, and a lot of people will get sick as is already very common in people who try veganism. I would argue you need to have significantly above average intelligence to do it right. So at the moment a healthy large population requires a lot of meat.
I didn't say "disease" i said class of diseases, there are a lot. lysine deficiency, osteoporosis, some kinds of arthritis on the amino acid end. And then there's the vitamins that beef always has, which wipes out a huge class of vitamin deficiencies... it's hard to understate how important meat is... reducing meat consumption is a very, very bad idea for public health.
I am not a model of health but I really only eat meat 3-4 meals a week.
It doesn’t seem to make much of difference. I understand that a healthy diet requires a wide variety of nutrients and so on but it’s interesting that allegedly even just reducing meat consumption (and really specifically beef) is so detrimental.
I am skeptical that people who consume less meat are so much worse off and would really need some recommendations on some reading to begin to understand that. I know my health hasn’t changed much but my grocery bill being cut in half by just not buying meat is pretty nice.
It doesn’t seem to make much of difference. I understand that a healthy diet requires a wide variety of nutrients and so on but it’s interesting that allegedly even just reducing meat consumption (and really specifically beef) is so detrimental.
I am skeptical that people who consume less meat are so much worse off and would really need some recommendations on some reading to begin to understand that. I know my health hasn’t changed much but my grocery bill being cut in half by just not buying meat is pretty nice.
[deleted]
I think that it's important to differentiate between a meat heavy diet, a diet that includes meat, lacto ovo vegetarianism, and veganism.
A shift from a meat heavy diet to a diet with a more balanced mix of foods should probably be the focus both from a health and environmental standpoint. On the other hand, full veganism probably isn't practical for most people in current American society. It would be great if we could also make it easier for people to choose a lacto ovo vegetarian diet in America.
A shift from a meat heavy diet to a diet with a more balanced mix of foods should probably be the focus both from a health and environmental standpoint. On the other hand, full veganism probably isn't practical for most people in current American society. It would be great if we could also make it easier for people to choose a lacto ovo vegetarian diet in America.
In terms of health, the biggest focus should be on reducing calorie intake and increasing saturation levels. It is listed as the #1 priority of the World Health Organization, and there is an argument to be made that its even mentioned three times in their top 5 recommendations.
Eat less. Eat less fat. Eat less sugars. The remaining recommendations are to eat enough vitamins/fibers, and to eat less salt.
From an environmental standpoint we should focus on bio diversity and sustainability which sadly very few of current food cultures fulfill. Increased use of shell fish and seaweed. Increase use of bio diverse farming. Reduced use of artificial fertilizers and chemical pesticides. Reduced use of fresh water. Increased hunting of invasive species. Increased use of grazing animals in nature reserves and area needing clearing (power lines and so on). Increased use of small scale farming and food waste management. Meat definitively has a role here but not in the mono-culture way that current industry meat production do it.
Eat less. Eat less fat. Eat less sugars. The remaining recommendations are to eat enough vitamins/fibers, and to eat less salt.
From an environmental standpoint we should focus on bio diversity and sustainability which sadly very few of current food cultures fulfill. Increased use of shell fish and seaweed. Increase use of bio diverse farming. Reduced use of artificial fertilizers and chemical pesticides. Reduced use of fresh water. Increased hunting of invasive species. Increased use of grazing animals in nature reserves and area needing clearing (power lines and so on). Increased use of small scale farming and food waste management. Meat definitively has a role here but not in the mono-culture way that current industry meat production do it.
That's reasonable.
I think it's important to keep in mind that calorie requirements vary dramatically based on lifestyle and goals; however, too many calories definitely seems to be the most common problem in the developed world.
I think it's important to keep in mind that calorie requirements vary dramatically based on lifestyle and goals; however, too many calories definitely seems to be the most common problem in the developed world.
Well, we're omnivorous animals leaning on the side of carnivore, sure enough, but we're also thinking animals.
As such, it's all very well to give a nod to our animal nature, but why stick to easy? Particularly as far as nutrition is concerned, humans could be doing so much better than we are.
I blame capitalism ;) or at least the exploit of it that involves being able to sell sugar water to animals until they choke and die. This is where we start to run into the failure of natural consumption to produce good outcomes, and have to jump up a level and start asking what a good outcome would represent.
Absolutely no reason to avoid doing this with meat consumption. I thrive on stir-fried chicken and rice and an egg in the morning and gummy vites and too much coffee, but there's no reason I couldn't do something else. I mean, I already supplement…
As such, it's all very well to give a nod to our animal nature, but why stick to easy? Particularly as far as nutrition is concerned, humans could be doing so much better than we are.
I blame capitalism ;) or at least the exploit of it that involves being able to sell sugar water to animals until they choke and die. This is where we start to run into the failure of natural consumption to produce good outcomes, and have to jump up a level and start asking what a good outcome would represent.
Absolutely no reason to avoid doing this with meat consumption. I thrive on stir-fried chicken and rice and an egg in the morning and gummy vites and too much coffee, but there's no reason I couldn't do something else. I mean, I already supplement…
Imagine downvoting objective fact.
Even the vegans and vegetarians I know acknowledge how hard it is to eat "clean" in a balanced way, especially out side of major urban areas.
Really? The people interested in those two issues have a wide overlap in my experience.
Have y'all noticed that the same people who insist on paper straws also want us to use compostable plastic utensils? Like come on, pick a lane!
All while Taylor Swift is taking 30 min private jet trips.
And the rest of us are using paper straws.
What's this about? It's at least the third time I've seen some comment about 'paper straws' in some way related to Swift / the 2024 'superbowl' match or something?
The commenter implies that "they" stole our plastic straws and that it is unfair because someone somewhere does something more polluting than using a plastic straw.
Essentially it amounts to "we shouldn't do anything about climate change because someone somewhere is worse than I am"
Essentially it amounts to "we shouldn't do anything about climate change because someone somewhere is worse than I am"
Ah I see, thank you. One of the others was a graphic of all the jets leaving after the match, just to explain my association.
> it is unfair because someone somewhere does something more polluting than using a plastic straw
It's unfair because I don't prescribe to a world view where plastic straws are a sin.
I hate that the people that hold these views are making business decisions that impact the quality of life for people who don't hold these as virtues. At least make it a choice!
I'm mildly OCD about dish cleanliness, and paper straws are an assault on hydration, to phrase it charitably.
> we shouldn't do anything about climate change
To what degree do straws actually impact climate?
It's unfair because I don't prescribe to a world view where plastic straws are a sin.
I hate that the people that hold these views are making business decisions that impact the quality of life for people who don't hold these as virtues. At least make it a choice!
I'm mildly OCD about dish cleanliness, and paper straws are an assault on hydration, to phrase it charitably.
> we shouldn't do anything about climate change
To what degree do straws actually impact climate?
> To what degree do straws actually impact climate?
They don't. The concern was ocean plastic, where the majority of it comes from Asian rivers or boats. So it's yet another of example of politicians pushing a meaningless policy to look like they're addressing a problem.
They don't. The concern was ocean plastic, where the majority of it comes from Asian rivers or boats. So it's yet another of example of politicians pushing a meaningless policy to look like they're addressing a problem.
More like the rich won't do anything about climate change because they can do whatever they want and the poor will be made to do pointless things that don't really impact anything. As long as it seems like 'something is being done' it'll 'feel' like something is being done. If we really gave a shit, cargo ships with massive house sized oil burning engines would be first to go and we would move to nuclear power. We would also start producing products locally instead of shipping them halfway across the globe because people have less labor laws across the pond. Instead the government and corporations make it the middle class' problem and the best part is environmentalists actually buy this horseshit wholesale. It'd be funny if it didn't make me sad.
But it is the middle class’s problem. If we take the Oxfam figure that the top one per cent cause sixteen per cent of the world’s emissions, it’s impossible to achieve sufficient reductions in emissions without action by the ninety-nine per cent.⁰ And of course quite a lot of the top one per cent are in fact ‘middle class’ by Western standards.
0: https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/richest-1-emit-much-...
0: https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/richest-1-emit-much-...
Your source also says 'The richest 10 percent accounted for half (50 percent) of emissions.'
Right, well, again, it would be very hard to meaningfully respond to climate change ignoring half of emissions.
It’s plausible that very little should be asked of the bottom half, who contribute under ten per cent of emissions if we follow Oxfam’s methodology.⁰ That would exclude nearly everybody in the West, though. And I take it that people on HN do not mean the global middle class when they say ‘middle class’.
0: https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/10...
It’s plausible that very little should be asked of the bottom half, who contribute under ten per cent of emissions if we follow Oxfam’s methodology.⁰ That would exclude nearly everybody in the West, though. And I take it that people on HN do not mean the global middle class when they say ‘middle class’.
0: https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/10...
> Essentially it amounts to "we shouldn't do anything about climate change because someone somewhere is worse than I am"
I did not read it that way.
I read it as: The entrenched political/upper classes who push policies like banning plastic straws are content to push feel-good policies when they affect the "regular" people but are unwilling to be inconvenienced themselves. Taylor Swift's 30-minute private jet ride is just a recent high-profile example.
We're all supposed to make sacrifices, right? I'm not an expert but it seems to me that in a world where things are so bad that we've needed to ban the use of plastic straws it's fair game to point out that the entrenched political/upper classes has a habit of spewing more carbon into the atmosphere in a single day than most people will their entire lifetimes, for the sake of _convenience_ (private jets). It's not like Swift was hand delivering heart and kidneys to someone who needed a transplant or anything.
If the only way for [insert person] to get to [insert event] is to hop on a private jet then maybe that person should take long look at whether or not they could attend remotely or watch the event on TV. We're all in this together, right?
I did not read it that way.
I read it as: The entrenched political/upper classes who push policies like banning plastic straws are content to push feel-good policies when they affect the "regular" people but are unwilling to be inconvenienced themselves. Taylor Swift's 30-minute private jet ride is just a recent high-profile example.
We're all supposed to make sacrifices, right? I'm not an expert but it seems to me that in a world where things are so bad that we've needed to ban the use of plastic straws it's fair game to point out that the entrenched political/upper classes has a habit of spewing more carbon into the atmosphere in a single day than most people will their entire lifetimes, for the sake of _convenience_ (private jets). It's not like Swift was hand delivering heart and kidneys to someone who needed a transplant or anything.
If the only way for [insert person] to get to [insert event] is to hop on a private jet then maybe that person should take long look at whether or not they could attend remotely or watch the event on TV. We're all in this together, right?
> The entrenched political/upper classes who push policies like banning plastic straws are content to push feel-good policies when they affect the "regular" people but are unwilling to be inconvenienced themselves. Taylor Swift's 30-minute private jet ride is just a recent high-profile example.
But Taylor Swift is not a lawmaker and is not herself banning plastic straws. If this was about policy, the point would be better made by pointing out actual politicians who support plastic straw bans flying in private jets. And people do point these out, with the yearly "LOL Private Jets To Davos" memes.
But Taylor Swift is not a lawmaker and is not herself banning plastic straws. If this was about policy, the point would be better made by pointing out actual politicians who support plastic straw bans flying in private jets. And people do point these out, with the yearly "LOL Private Jets To Davos" memes.
Taylor Swift may not a lawmaker but she publicly supports and endorses politicians who are pushing those policies. She also has the money to adopt whatever lifestyle she wants without worrying about consequences, yet chooses to do things like take a 30 minute flight on a private jet instead of using an electric vehicle, or a fleet of electric vehicles if you count her staff/bodyguards. It's not like she has a boss who is telling her when and where to be - she makes her own schedule.
I don't blame her (or others in her position) for enjoying their success, but I do think that people who are in a position like that have a responsibility to practice what they preach (or support politically).
substitute Swift for Musk or Kerry or whoever - the argument is the same.
I don't blame her (or others in her position) for enjoying their success, but I do think that people who are in a position like that have a responsibility to practice what they preach (or support politically).
substitute Swift for Musk or Kerry or whoever - the argument is the same.
But still wrapped in plastic.
You know. For your protection...
You know. For your protection...
And Japan peels away the banana of its natural coating and puts it in a plastic bag.
Do you mean the "Mongee" banana?
It is wrapped in a plastic bag, but the peel is actually edible.
https://www.newsweek.com/you-eat-these-newly-engineered-bana...
It is wrapped in a plastic bag, but the peel is actually edible.
https://www.newsweek.com/you-eat-these-newly-engineered-bana...
The over-packaging problem in Japan
https://univibes.org/blog/over-packaging-problem-in-japan/
I actually came across this tidbit while watching a vlog on youtube where the vlogger mentioned that Japan uses too much plastic for everything.
https://univibes.org/blog/over-packaging-problem-in-japan/
I actually came across this tidbit while watching a vlog on youtube where the vlogger mentioned that Japan uses too much plastic for everything.
And rich people fly to big sporting events like FIFA World Cup causing so much pollution by air travel. They could have watched it from convenience of their home.
> I also wonder if a games console could drop its FPS, or outsource some of its processing to the cloud, when domestic electricity becomes too expensive.
I don't think that is neccessary, but there is a lot of applications that could reduce / slow their workflow to less demanding times. This coud be priced into cloud costs per hour.
And then there are some things that should stop existing: bitcoin.
I don't think that is neccessary, but there is a lot of applications that could reduce / slow their workflow to less demanding times. This coud be priced into cloud costs per hour.
And then there are some things that should stop existing: bitcoin.
It would be nice to get some accurate measurements for how carbon-intensive LLMs and image models are.
I've started to cut way back on just randomly noodling with image prompts once I read that each image generated might produce the same amount of carbon as driving four miles. That really adds up.
I've started to cut way back on just randomly noodling with image prompts once I read that each image generated might produce the same amount of carbon as driving four miles. That really adds up.
There is quite literally no way that math is correct. Even in the absolute worst case scenario where your server farm was powered by coal plants exclusively this would not be the case.
Using a Kill-a-watt to measure, my M2 Max will pull around 60 watts for 10-15 seconds while running stable diffusion, and the Apple chips aren’t even especially suited for the task. Hosted services in data centers with Nvidia GPUs are probably more efficient per image. There’s no chance I’m using more energy in a month of playing with stable diffusion with 10 second bursts of load than there is in an hour of playing a AAA game which will have my gaming system pulling about 260 watts sustained.
According to somebody on reddit it takes 10s to get a decent 512x512 image with 60 iterations or so from their 3060. Those will draw 0.18 kilowatts at full load. Average US electricity will emit 0.86 pounds of carbon per kilowatt hour. EPA says average passenger car is 0.88 pounds of carbon per mile. If you multiply it through, that image generation is about as carbon intensive as moving the car 1 yard. If you're using a cloud farm it's probably much more efficient due to batching and larger industrial-grade GPUs I imagine.
> I read that each image generated might produce the same amount of carbon as driving four miles
I can safely assure you that this is bullshit. Any electric car will use well over 1 Kwh to travel that distance. You can run two high-end GPUs for an hour with that amount of electricity. You're not spending two hours of GPU-time to generate your images.
I can safely assure you that this is bullshit. Any electric car will use well over 1 Kwh to travel that distance. You can run two high-end GPUs for an hour with that amount of electricity. You're not spending two hours of GPU-time to generate your images.
Adds up to what? You think not driving 4 miles makes any real difference?
[deleted]
The mechanism that can shift supply to less polluting sources of electricity and shape demand for computation/electricity is pricing.
Measurement, pricing and reducing pollution externalities is a major challenge, but I don't think that's as unknown of a problem as the article seems to suggest.
Measurement, pricing and reducing pollution externalities is a major challenge, but I don't think that's as unknown of a problem as the article seems to suggest.
Just tell them to cut animations and you ll have the same impact
Smart features like this seem to assume a connection to the grid based on location information. What if the device is connected to a microgrid? Is that configurable?
Nice climatic authoritarianism the author is advocating for here.
> I also wonder if a games console could drop its FPS, or outsource some of its processing to the cloud, when domestic electricity becomes too expensive.
No. Go to China to protest against their impact on the planet instead.
No. Go to China to protest against their impact on the planet instead.
After you have realized that your game console was made in China, you mean?
Because the CO2 emission does not happen in your backyard does not mean that it does not happen for your own comfort.
Because the CO2 emission does not happen in your backyard does not mean that it does not happen for your own comfort.
I'm not sure we regularly let off the second-worst offenders from the consequences of their actions. "Oh, you mean he's only the second-most prolific serial killer? I don't know why you're mad at him when there's Axe Killer Joe running about as well."
The largest polluter in the world is the US Military.
Do you have a link to information on that? It doesn't surprise me that the US Military produces a lot of pollution; however, I'm surprised that they are the largest.
They are the largest single entity polluter in the world according to a recent-ish estimate [1].
It does make sense, as with the exception of aircraft carriers all of the US military naval assets run on fossil fuels, and so does all other hardware (trucks, tanks, planes, construction equipment, power generators, ...). And almost all of that is exempt from emissions regulations, a lot of it is so old that it predates modern regulations anyway.
[1] https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2022/10/pentagon-cli...
It does make sense, as with the exception of aircraft carriers all of the US military naval assets run on fossil fuels, and so does all other hardware (trucks, tanks, planes, construction equipment, power generators, ...). And almost all of that is exempt from emissions regulations, a lot of it is so old that it predates modern regulations anyway.
[1] https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2022/10/pentagon-cli...
Their competitors - which like the US military will be state-controlled entities - for burning the most fossil fuels aren't exactly known for their transparency. They're generally going to be in China.
And then to be able to burn any, you first need to take them out of the ground. If we count those indirect emissions, obviously Saudi Aramco causes orders of magnitudes more emissions than the Pentagon. Sure, this comparison may be "cheating", but put it this way; it's much worse for global emissions to have Aramco improve their barrels/day rate by 10% than the Pentagon's budget increase by 10%.
And then to be able to burn any, you first need to take them out of the ground. If we count those indirect emissions, obviously Saudi Aramco causes orders of magnitudes more emissions than the Pentagon. Sure, this comparison may be "cheating", but put it this way; it's much worse for global emissions to have Aramco improve their barrels/day rate by 10% than the Pentagon's budget increase by 10%.
> Their competitors - which like the US military will be state-controlled entities - for burning the most fossil fuels aren't exactly known for their transparency. They're generally going to be in China.
China has orders of magnitude less logistics to accomplish. They only run three small overseas military sites, in contrast to the (at least) 1.000 sites the US operates.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_oversea...
China has orders of magnitude less logistics to accomplish. They only run three small overseas military sites, in contrast to the (at least) 1.000 sites the US operates.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_oversea...
> Their competitors - which like the US military will be state-controlled entities - for burning the most fossil fuels aren't exactly known for their transparency.
The Pentagon has never passed an audit, so it's not known for it's transparency either.
https://www.npr.org/2021/05/19/997961646/the-pentagon-has-ne...
https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2023/11/16/pentagon-fai...
Trillions of funds unaccounted for & much of what is accounted for is "top secret". Not transparent.
> Sure, this comparison may be "cheating", but put it this way; it's much worse for global emissions to have Aramco improve their barrels/day rate by 10% than the Pentagon's budget increase by 10%.
Much of the violence, weapon production, & violations of sovereignty in the world is centered around the desire to control this resource. I'll take emissions that make make life better/useful things vs emissions that destroy lives/things.
The Pentagon has never passed an audit, so it's not known for it's transparency either.
https://www.npr.org/2021/05/19/997961646/the-pentagon-has-ne...
https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2023/11/16/pentagon-fai...
Trillions of funds unaccounted for & much of what is accounted for is "top secret". Not transparent.
> Sure, this comparison may be "cheating", but put it this way; it's much worse for global emissions to have Aramco improve their barrels/day rate by 10% than the Pentagon's budget increase by 10%.
Much of the violence, weapon production, & violations of sovereignty in the world is centered around the desire to control this resource. I'll take emissions that make make life better/useful things vs emissions that destroy lives/things.
[deleted]
Only if you don't count the Medicare program
For most consumers, power is cheap enough where that level of optimization isn't really noteworthy, but for larger industrial systems where power demand is a huge expense, that could actually save you a ton of money