9 ms·
The original point was the Jevin paradox, which says that increased efficiency leads to more efficient consumption. We’re now going round in circles about the c
by tolien 8y ago
The original point was the Jevin paradox, which says that increased efficiency leads to more efficient consumption. We’re now going round in circles about the causes of the decline of CRTs relative to flat panels, which is definitely a divergence.
I suspect if you re-ran the study you’d get a number bigger than 2, which (qualitatively) is the point I was getting at!
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- laumars 8y agoThe think the thing about the Jevin paradox (if I understand it correctly) is it requires causation and, as I've said previously, I think in the case of TVs it's a correlation without causation. ie I think we would still have seen larger displays and more TVs in each home even if there hadn't been improvements in energy efficiency. I appreciate you feel we're going round in circles but that's always been the crux of my point right from the start and the reason why I don't believe the Jevin Paradox applies to that specific example. However I do also think we've headed into the realm of using assumptions as statistics (as also discussed in my other post[1]) so perhaps this is one of those occasions where our differing opinions cannot be consolidated? [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18192773 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18192773
- cwilkes 8y agoAlso there has to be a somewhat high and tractable initial cost for the paradox to kick in. How much does it cost to run a TV for a year? I have no idea as it is rolled into my monthly electricity bill. Now for a car I can see that immediately. Whoa $60 for a tank of gas? Maybe I won’t go on that road trip or maybe I’ll use the bus or telecommute.