7 ms·

On the contrary, this is the one example of a company doing something for the public good even when no one asked them to.

by A12-B 6y ago

qqii 6y ago
How so? Take this excerpt from the article: > Nvidia does state that these GPUs "don't meet the specifications required of a GeForce GPU and, thus, don't impact the availability of GeForce GPUs to gamers." Frankly, that doesn't mean much. What does Nvidia do with a GPU that normally can't be sold as an RTX 3090? They bin it as a 3080, and GA102 chips that can't meet the 3080 requirements can end up in a future 3070 (or maybe a 3070 Ti). The same goes for the rest of the line. Make no mistake: These are GPUs that could have gone into a graphics card. Maybe not a reference 3060 Ti, 3070, 3080, or 3090, but we've seen TU104 chips in RTX 2060 cards, so anything is possible. Combine with their after market value (see https://youtu.be/XfIibTBaoMM https://youtu.be/XfIibTBaoMM), this is no more than Nividia trying to spin goodwill whilst padding their bottom line.
- DoctorNick 6y ago
  Because cryptocurrency mining is now one of the biggest contributors to climate change. It is killing the planet. It is a moral imperiative to shut it down by any means necessary.
  - amarshall 6y ago
    Sure, but Nvidia is now selling cards specifically marketed towards miners (CMP). Their goal appears to be profit, little more.
  - kamranjon 6y ago
    'One of the biggest contributors to climate change' - this is so far from being even remotely true
    - _jal 6y ago
      Perhaps overstated, but it is a noticeable percentage of global electricity use spent on what is at best an enabling technology for the somewhat quixotic pursuits of a tiny fraction of the population. You should of course make your own judgments, but many people do not consider that a good tradeoff.
      - SXX 6y ago
        Keep in mind that bulk of crypto mining is quite centralized around the places with cheap elictricity so it's also mean cheapest source give highest advantage. Unlike actual people mining farms can be placed right next to power source so it's easier to use Nuclear / Wind / Solar / Hydro for such purposes.
        danhor 6y ago
        > Unlike actual people mining farms can be placed right next to power source so it's easier to use Nuclear / Wind / Solar / Hydro for such purposes. While electricity transportation is an issue, it's not a huge one compared to the likes of storage and actually having something generating electricity. And, as it turns out, a lot of the mining farms just use coal (https://decrypt.co/43848/why-bitcoin-miners-dont-use-more-renewable-energy https://decrypt.co/43848/why-bitcoin-miners-dont-use-more-re...), with only around 40% of the energy coming from renewables. Even if they were only using renewables, it's still not zero carbon, since renewables also need to be built & since the total power consumption is increased, older coal plants might be used for longer. For something, where the economic value is comparatively low.
        qqii 6y ago
        The link in your article to the primary source of the Cambridge University survey is unfortunately dead. The alternative metric given (https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption/ https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption/) currency predicts 36.95 Million Tonnes of CO2. That's 0.1% of total CO2 emissions per year (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co-emissions-by-region https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co-emissions-by-re...) and 0.074% of global CO2eq (https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector). I'd probably agree that this is still pretty high for what amount to digital hording. On the other hand the seccond most popular blockchain Ethereum is estimated at half the energy consumption (https://digiconomist.net/ethereum-energy-consumption https://digiconomist.net/ethereum-energy-consumption), has a plan to move to proof of stake and has a lot more economic value. The space is still new and bitcoin has first mover's advantage, name recognition and trust (most hashrate, most reviewed codebase, etc).
  - gruez 6y ago
    gp's point is that even though it might have a positive effect on climate change, the decision was likely not made for altruistic reasons. It's like the apple charger debacle from a few months ago.
  - kortex 6y ago
    It's 121 TWh/y, world total is on the order of 160,000 TWh/y (primary energy supply), so crypto is less than 1 part per thousand. It's huge for pushing numbers around, but hardly "one of the biggest contributions". https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56012952 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56012952 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption
    - qqii 6y ago
      The source for the BBC article (https://cbeci.org/cbeci/comparisons https://cbeci.org/cbeci/comparisons) even gives it as 0.48% of total electricity production and 0.55% of total electricity consumption. The graph it and the article shows us misleading as it only compares electricity and not total energy consumption.
  - qqii 6y ago
    How did you reach this conclusion? Do you have some sources and numbers? https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-energy-substitution https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-energy-substitutio... puts the latest number at 173,340 TWh in 2019. This is an underestimate for the current value as energy consumption has been increasing. https://cbeci.org/ https://cbeci.org/ estimates the annualised consumption based on a 7 day moving average of 120.87 TWh for bitcoin. To be generous let's assume all cryptocurrency mining is double that for 241.74 TWh. That's only 0.14% of the total energy production, a lot of which comes from renuables (abundant cheap electricity means more profits for miners). Even if you assume the worst case of 1100 gCO2eq/kWh (https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/post/postpn_383-carbon-footprint-electricity-generation.pdf https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/post/postpn...) that's 265.914 Million Tonnes and https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-country?tab=chart&country=~OWID_WRL https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-... shows the 2019 value at 36.44 Billion Tonnes That's a grave overestimate of 0.73% assuming the most pollution energy production and even then it doesn't even compare to any other sector: https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector
    - Azeralthefallen 6y ago
      https://cbeci.org/cbeci/comparisons https://cbeci.org/cbeci/comparisons Right here it says `20 863 TWh` which is nearly 10 times your worst case.
      - qqii 6y ago
        Note the difference between only electricity and other forms of energy, the value listed is total electricity production/consumption.
  - imtringued 6y ago
    That's neither true nor the reason why Nvidia is doing this. What Nvidia is doing is like a dad making his kids share their sweets in a 50:50 ratio by taking advantage of the fact that one of his kids has a peanut allergy and the other has a walnut allergy and therefore 50% of the sweets contain peanuts and the other 50% walnuts.

On the contrary, this is the one example of a company doing something for the public good even when no one asked them to.

by A12-B 6y ago

On the contrary, this is the one example of a company doing something for the public good even when no one asked them to.

qqii 6y ago

How so? Take this excerpt from the article: > Nvidia does state that these GPUs "don't meet the specifications required of a GeForce GPU and, thus, don't impact the availability of GeForce GPUs to gamers." Frankly, that doesn't mean much. What does Nvidia do with a GPU that normally can't be sold as an RTX 3090? They bin it as a 3080, and GA102 chips that can't meet the 3080 requirements can end up in a future 3070 (or maybe a 3070 Ti). The same goes for the rest of the line. Make no mistake: These are GPUs that could have gone into a graphics card. Maybe not a reference 3060 Ti, 3070, 3080, or 3090, but we've seen TU104 chips in RTX 2060 cards, so anything is possible. Combine with their after market value (see https://youtu.be/XfIibTBaoMM https://youtu.be/XfIibTBaoMM), this is no more than Nividia trying to spin goodwill whilst padding their bottom line.

DoctorNick 6y ago
Because cryptocurrency mining is now one of the biggest contributors to climate change. It is killing the planet. It is a moral imperiative to shut it down by any means necessary.
- amarshall 6y ago
  Sure, but Nvidia is now selling cards specifically marketed towards miners (CMP). Their goal appears to be profit, little more.
- kamranjon 6y ago
  'One of the biggest contributors to climate change' - this is so far from being even remotely true
  - _jal 6y ago
    Perhaps overstated, but it is a noticeable percentage of global electricity use spent on what is at best an enabling technology for the somewhat quixotic pursuits of a tiny fraction of the population. You should of course make your own judgments, but many people do not consider that a good tradeoff.
    - SXX 6y ago
      Keep in mind that bulk of crypto mining is quite centralized around the places with cheap elictricity so it's also mean cheapest source give highest advantage. Unlike actual people mining farms can be placed right next to power source so it's easier to use Nuclear / Wind / Solar / Hydro for such purposes.
      - danhor 6y ago
        > Unlike actual people mining farms can be placed right next to power source so it's easier to use Nuclear / Wind / Solar / Hydro for such purposes. While electricity transportation is an issue, it's not a huge one compared to the likes of storage and actually having something generating electricity. And, as it turns out, a lot of the mining farms just use coal (https://decrypt.co/43848/why-bitcoin-miners-dont-use-more-renewable-energy https://decrypt.co/43848/why-bitcoin-miners-dont-use-more-re...), with only around 40% of the energy coming from renewables. Even if they were only using renewables, it's still not zero carbon, since renewables also need to be built & since the total power consumption is increased, older coal plants might be used for longer. For something, where the economic value is comparatively low.
        qqii 6y ago
        The link in your article to the primary source of the Cambridge University survey is unfortunately dead. The alternative metric given (https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption/ https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption/) currency predicts 36.95 Million Tonnes of CO2. That's 0.1% of total CO2 emissions per year (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co-emissions-by-region https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co-emissions-by-re...) and 0.074% of global CO2eq (https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector). I'd probably agree that this is still pretty high for what amount to digital hording. On the other hand the seccond most popular blockchain Ethereum is estimated at half the energy consumption (https://digiconomist.net/ethereum-energy-consumption https://digiconomist.net/ethereum-energy-consumption), has a plan to move to proof of stake and has a lot more economic value. The space is still new and bitcoin has first mover's advantage, name recognition and trust (most hashrate, most reviewed codebase, etc).
- gruez 6y ago
  gp's point is that even though it might have a positive effect on climate change, the decision was likely not made for altruistic reasons. It's like the apple charger debacle from a few months ago.
- kortex 6y ago
  It's 121 TWh/y, world total is on the order of 160,000 TWh/y (primary energy supply), so crypto is less than 1 part per thousand. It's huge for pushing numbers around, but hardly "one of the biggest contributions". https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56012952 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56012952 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption
  - qqii 6y ago
    The source for the BBC article (https://cbeci.org/cbeci/comparisons https://cbeci.org/cbeci/comparisons) even gives it as 0.48% of total electricity production and 0.55% of total electricity consumption. The graph it and the article shows us misleading as it only compares electricity and not total energy consumption.
- qqii 6y ago
  How did you reach this conclusion? Do you have some sources and numbers? https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-energy-substitution https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-energy-substitutio... puts the latest number at 173,340 TWh in 2019. This is an underestimate for the current value as energy consumption has been increasing. https://cbeci.org/ https://cbeci.org/ estimates the annualised consumption based on a 7 day moving average of 120.87 TWh for bitcoin. To be generous let's assume all cryptocurrency mining is double that for 241.74 TWh. That's only 0.14% of the total energy production, a lot of which comes from renuables (abundant cheap electricity means more profits for miners). Even if you assume the worst case of 1100 gCO2eq/kWh (https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/post/postpn_383-carbon-footprint-electricity-generation.pdf https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/post/postpn...) that's 265.914 Million Tonnes and https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-country?tab=chart&country=~OWID_WRL https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-... shows the 2019 value at 36.44 Billion Tonnes That's a grave overestimate of 0.73% assuming the most pollution energy production and even then it doesn't even compare to any other sector: https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector
  - Azeralthefallen 6y ago
    https://cbeci.org/cbeci/comparisons https://cbeci.org/cbeci/comparisons Right here it says `20 863 TWh` which is nearly 10 times your worst case.
    - qqii 6y ago
      Note the difference between only electricity and other forms of energy, the value listed is total electricity production/consumption.
- imtringued 6y ago
  That's neither true nor the reason why Nvidia is doing this. What Nvidia is doing is like a dad making his kids share their sweets in a 50:50 ratio by taking advantage of the fact that one of his kids has a peanut allergy and the other has a walnut allergy and therefore 50% of the sweets contain peanuts and the other 50% walnuts.