4 ms·
It really does not matter how much they pay because the market price does not include the actual costs a company imposes on the environment. There is no CO2 Tax
by hn23 7y ago
It really does not matter how much they pay because the market price does not include the actual costs a company imposes on the environment. There is no CO2 Tax, is there?
Ask yourself: How can it be more efficient to stream the same stuff over and over again, wasting CPU cycles on couple of fat machines etc. instead of playing it from a local cache (hard drive, ...). IMHO it cannot be more efficient. It is convenient and it appears to be cheap.
- yongjik 7y agoYou are right that these companies don't pay the "actual costs" on environmental damage, but that's a separate issue, and not really relevant to the initial claim. If you claim that someone is using 7 kWh or electricity, you had better be prepared to show they actually do. (Besides, consumers don't pay for the environmental cost of building and shipping an SSD from Taiwan, either.) Companies like Amazon may not care about environment, but they care a lot about saving money, and modern computers can handle a surprising amount of connections simultaneously: it's not like those beefy AWS instances are serving just your music.
- hn23 7y agoThe 7kWh figure was not mine. However, I see what the intend of the Thread starter was and I think he is right. Streaming video/music on top of 'AI' (to sell more stuff), security theater and Ad campaigns is just a waste of resources. /s I would bet Bezos and folks can buy fresh air when it comes to this point. But at least we all could watch Game of Thrones when we wanted to.