4 ms·
It's hard to say. Obviously without any data at all none of those screens would be on. I always find the discussion of marginal increases of energy tricky. If
by SamBam 6y ago
It's hard to say. Obviously without any data at all none of those screens would be on.
I always find the discussion of marginal increases of energy tricky. If I buy a plane ticket on a half-empty flight, obviously that flight was going to take off anyway, so the marginal increase of my weight plus my luggage is fairly negligible in comparison, so I'm only to "blame" for a fraction of the fuel spent, right? But who else is there to blame except the passengers, without whom there would be (eventually) no flights? So shouldn't we all divide the blame evenly?
- crazygringo 6y agoIf we keep it simple, there are two kinds of marginal increases. The first type is when marginal increase can lead to a "new unit", like planes you refer to -- or servers used by data centers. If a plane fits 100 people, then (simplifying) 1/100 of the time you'll result in a new plane being used, so it makes sense to divide the plane's total resources by passengers -- not just the fuel you used. But the second type never results in a "new unit". In this scenario, using more resource-hungry analytics will never push someone to purchase a second cell phone to spread the load. So counting anything but marginal energy increase usage by the CPU directly is disingenuous. So in the case of analytics software, their data center server/power resources fall into the first type. But the consumer device resources fall into the second type. So in this case I don't think there's anything tricky at all about it.