Start calculating digital carbon emissions in 5 minutes with CO2.js (2022)(thegreenwebfoundation.org)
thegreenwebfoundation.org
Start calculating digital carbon emissions in 5 minutes with CO2.js (2022)
https://www.thegreenwebfoundation.org/news/start-calculating-digital-carbon-emissions-in-5-minutes-with-co2-js/
20 コメント
Yes, but one does not have to reliably make assertions to feed a meme.
People want to be good. The current agenda God says you are good if you sacrifice to the CO2 god. No need to make reliable assertions to feel good about it. Anyone who challenges the act of sacrifice is someone to burn. No challenge means no problems.
Anyone who wants to see both sides of the Co2 discussion is already sceptical at minimum. But it does not make you feel good. Therefore its rare. It feels good to sacrifice to the Co2 god. “Lemme sacrifice you fool.”
People want to be good. The current agenda God says you are good if you sacrifice to the CO2 god. No need to make reliable assertions to feel good about it. Anyone who challenges the act of sacrifice is someone to burn. No challenge means no problems.
Anyone who wants to see both sides of the Co2 discussion is already sceptical at minimum. But it does not make you feel good. Therefore its rare. It feels good to sacrifice to the Co2 god. “Lemme sacrifice you fool.”
This project doesn't seem to care whether I'm sending data to someone else right near us-east-1 or whether I'm sending data to Australia. The energy costs will be very very different.
Shout out to Hammers, Hurricanes, and HTML, a talk that happened today at Future of Frontend from Astro developer Ben Holmes that goes deep into what this model is saying. https://www.youtube.com/live/29wHaG7eVPM?si=O4_S-F8TYKpRJLMP...
Not only is it measuring bytes blindly, it's counting rating your energy use as a % of bytes sent, versus total data-center consumption period. As though every byte is equally responsible for the total computing done. Absurdly wrongheaded model.
It's not just attributing bytes
Not only is it measuring bytes blindly, it's counting rating your energy use as a % of bytes sent, versus total data-center consumption period. As though every byte is equally responsible for the total computing done. Absurdly wrongheaded model.
It's not just attributing bytes
It's time to stop calculating carbon and start taxing it.
Kiss crypto and AI goodbye.
I would be happy to kiss crypto goodbye and though AI might be stifled it would still be developed further just with a mind to efficiency. This is because it has actual real world uses unlike crypto.
Perhaps someone can invent a proof-of-carbonscrub coin.
Crypto, oh dear. AI just needs to factor in the externalities.
I’d rather not kiss the global ecosystem goodbye
I’d rather not kiss the global ecosystem goodbye
That's great! I submitted another story for a Python library
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40619672
I think CodeCarbon (the python library) might have a better method for estimating carbon usage. They seem to be digging it up on a per-power station basis. Would love to see the join forces.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40619672
I think CodeCarbon (the python library) might have a better method for estimating carbon usage. They seem to be digging it up on a per-power station basis. Would love to see the join forces.
Iron fertilization of ocean technique already had been proven to work to solve CO2 problem. It qas so successful Canadian government had to arrest the lead researchers at their office to discredit it. The whole idea of taxing CO2 is what gets us to today where CO2 continue to spike. The taxong only brings in money for the rich and governments to spend. It doesnt do anything to reduce CO2. Go check it out CO2 taxing started dwcades ago. And what is current worldwide government position on iron fertilization. You be shocked.
Idk why Wikipedia don't consider making dark mode the default and giving users an option of switching classic light mode manually. Figure that should make a significant dent for the effort involved. I remember putting it forward as a suggestion a few years ago.
It hardly makes a difference on LCD monitors. See also blackle
Edit (25 minutes later): a phone screen seems to use about 1W more on a white background than a very dark one from what I could quickly find on mobile (https://www.xda-developers.com/amoled-black-vs-gray-dark-mod...). 5 billion people seem to use phones for some 4.4h/day (https://backlinko.com/smartphone-usage-statistics). Assuming 70% uses OLED worldwide (probably much less, but I can't quickly find a source for this) and 50% of the time is spent on reading text (not tiktok videos or whatever, where you can't use dark theme), that's 2.8 TWh per year. About 178'000 TWh of energy are used by the world per year (https://ourworldindata.org/energy-production-consumption).
So this should save 0.002% in this best-case scenario where every text-based application switches to nearly black backgrounds and most people have OLED screens and people actually use their device for text at least as much as for media consumption.
Is that worth it? Maybe, but perhaps not as effective as not loading megabytes of JavaScript on every page, not downloading ads and tracking on every page, and funding low-carbon electricity generation needed for your systems. Wikipedia already is pretty good on the first two afaik, the latter I can't easily tell beyond saying in 2019 they're doing a "best effort" in buying green-labeled electricity and making an inventory of other emissions like plane travel (https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2019/09/19/how-the-wiki...)
Edit (25 minutes later): a phone screen seems to use about 1W more on a white background than a very dark one from what I could quickly find on mobile (https://www.xda-developers.com/amoled-black-vs-gray-dark-mod...). 5 billion people seem to use phones for some 4.4h/day (https://backlinko.com/smartphone-usage-statistics). Assuming 70% uses OLED worldwide (probably much less, but I can't quickly find a source for this) and 50% of the time is spent on reading text (not tiktok videos or whatever, where you can't use dark theme), that's 2.8 TWh per year. About 178'000 TWh of energy are used by the world per year (https://ourworldindata.org/energy-production-consumption).
So this should save 0.002% in this best-case scenario where every text-based application switches to nearly black backgrounds and most people have OLED screens and people actually use their device for text at least as much as for media consumption.
Is that worth it? Maybe, but perhaps not as effective as not loading megabytes of JavaScript on every page, not downloading ads and tracking on every page, and funding low-carbon electricity generation needed for your systems. Wikipedia already is pretty good on the first two afaik, the latter I can't easily tell beyond saying in 2019 they're doing a "best effort" in buying green-labeled electricity and making an inventory of other emissions like plane travel (https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2019/09/19/how-the-wiki...)
Looks like peeps who contributed to covid.js and calculated R-variable now switched to new projects.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Added to that the opportunities for charging the various parties for "certification" are simply too good to pass up it seems.