4 ms·

This is like banning a Bugatti Veyron (worldwide production about 30 per year) because the gas mileage is too low. Priceless Puritans.

neolog 5y ago
This is a $1100 computer, not a $2M car.
- JoshTriplett 5y ago
  It makes a lot more sense to ban a car (regardless of price) for polluting the environment we all breathe and contributing to global warming, than it does to ban a computer that uses power the end user pays for by the kilowatt.
  - neolog 5y ago
    Car end-users pay for petroleum too. Anyway the laptop is probably not actually banned. Dell's probably trying to hit a threshold for eco tax benefits or something.
  - bradlys 5y ago
    > It makes a lot more sense to ban a car (regardless of price) for polluting the environment we all breathe and contributing to global warming, than it does to ban a computer that uses power the end user pays for by the kilowatt. What? That makes no sense. Unless you're off the grid and using solar - where do you think the electricity from your outlets comes from? People still pay for the car and the gas - just like you do for the electricity that is result of work that pumps shit into the air too.
    - JoshTriplett 5y ago
      > where do you think the electricity from your outlets comes from Power generation sources that can and should be made cleaner. And those sources can be made cleaner regardless of how much individuals use (and pay for). > People still pay for the car and the gas - just like you do for the electricity that is result of work that pumps shit into the air too. An individual's selection of vehicle directly affects carbon emissions in a way that can't be mitigated in a society-wide fashion. Electrical power generation, on the other hand, can get cleaner without the end user changing anything. So it makes more sense to have regulations about the carbon emissions on a car. A laptop doesn't have carbon emissions directly, it just uses electricity, so at a societal level that seems better managed by improving electricity generation.
  - seoaeu 5y ago
    Vehicle owners pay for gas by the gallon...
  - pc86 5y ago
    I'm absolutely positive that the total carbon emissions from mid-grade retail gaming laptops outpaces the carbon emissions from super high-end luxury sports cars by a couple orders of magnitude at least. I'd be shocked if the ~25 Bugatti Veyrons in existence drive a collective 250 miles per years, compared to how many tens of thousands of wannabe streamers drop $1-1.5k on a shitty Dell every year?
TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
I see your point but wonder if the legislation that bans these specifically mention computers or just any electronic device that draws more than XXXX watts per hour.
- bradlys 5y ago
  It's specifically aimed at various classes of computers and computer equipment. It is not for any electronic device.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  It does not matter. The correct way to reduce electricity consumption is to increase the price of electricity, aka a tax. No need for politicians to selectively pick and choose which products to gimp. For those who will retort with “but those are regressive taxes and hurt the poor”, I will say that if you want to fix people being poor, then give them cash. It is unrelated to the goals of reducing electricity usage, and there is no need to mix the two. For those who will say there is no money to give poor people cash, I will say that the difficult task of enacting even more wealth transfers is the only solution there. Edit: It is the same exact thing with fuel efficiency in cars and gas taxes. There is no need for CAFE standards or mandated fuel efficiency if a simple gas tax was ratcheted up until usage dropped. Then we would not have pickup trucks twice the size they were 20 years ago consuming even more gas. Of course this does not happen, because it is politically unpopular to enact legislation that broadly forces people to lower consumption. So we end up with these discriminatory band aids where you get screwed if you do not have sufficient political clout.
  - derefr 5y ago
    The objective is presumably to incentivize increased electrical efficiency in devices, by banning inefficient electrical devices. The goal wouldn't be to decrease consumption; it would be to increase the amount of useful work done while holding consumption constant.
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
snowwrestler 5y ago
The issue is idle power draw, so it’s more like banning a Ford F150 that cannot be turned off when it’s not being driven. Imagine if your neighbor got a car that just sat in the driveway with its engine running 24 hours per day.
- kcb 5y ago
  Bad analogy. This is idle power not off power.
  - rrss 5y ago
    it's a much better analogy than wrycoder's. cars don't generally have long-term idle states like computers do.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

neolog 5y ago

This is a $1100 computer, not a $2M car.

JoshTriplett 5y ago
It makes a lot more sense to ban a car (regardless of price) for polluting the environment we all breathe and contributing to global warming, than it does to ban a computer that uses power the end user pays for by the kilowatt.
- neolog 5y ago
  Car end-users pay for petroleum too. Anyway the laptop is probably not actually banned. Dell's probably trying to hit a threshold for eco tax benefits or something.
- bradlys 5y ago
  > It makes a lot more sense to ban a car (regardless of price) for polluting the environment we all breathe and contributing to global warming, than it does to ban a computer that uses power the end user pays for by the kilowatt. What? That makes no sense. Unless you're off the grid and using solar - where do you think the electricity from your outlets comes from? People still pay for the car and the gas - just like you do for the electricity that is result of work that pumps shit into the air too.
  - JoshTriplett 5y ago
    > where do you think the electricity from your outlets comes from Power generation sources that can and should be made cleaner. And those sources can be made cleaner regardless of how much individuals use (and pay for). > People still pay for the car and the gas - just like you do for the electricity that is result of work that pumps shit into the air too. An individual's selection of vehicle directly affects carbon emissions in a way that can't be mitigated in a society-wide fashion. Electrical power generation, on the other hand, can get cleaner without the end user changing anything. So it makes more sense to have regulations about the carbon emissions on a car. A laptop doesn't have carbon emissions directly, it just uses electricity, so at a societal level that seems better managed by improving electricity generation.
- seoaeu 5y ago
  Vehicle owners pay for gas by the gallon...
- pc86 5y ago
  I'm absolutely positive that the total carbon emissions from mid-grade retail gaming laptops outpaces the carbon emissions from super high-end luxury sports cars by a couple orders of magnitude at least. I'd be shocked if the ~25 Bugatti Veyrons in existence drive a collective 250 miles per years, compared to how many tens of thousands of wannabe streamers drop $1-1.5k on a shitty Dell every year?

TedDoesntTalk 5y ago

I see your point but wonder if the legislation that bans these specifically mention computers or just any electronic device that draws more than XXXX watts per hour.

bradlys 5y ago
It's specifically aimed at various classes of computers and computer equipment. It is not for any electronic device.
lotsofpulp 5y ago
It does not matter. The correct way to reduce electricity consumption is to increase the price of electricity, aka a tax. No need for politicians to selectively pick and choose which products to gimp. For those who will retort with “but those are regressive taxes and hurt the poor”, I will say that if you want to fix people being poor, then give them cash. It is unrelated to the goals of reducing electricity usage, and there is no need to mix the two. For those who will say there is no money to give poor people cash, I will say that the difficult task of enacting even more wealth transfers is the only solution there. Edit: It is the same exact thing with fuel efficiency in cars and gas taxes. There is no need for CAFE standards or mandated fuel efficiency if a simple gas tax was ratcheted up until usage dropped. Then we would not have pickup trucks twice the size they were 20 years ago consuming even more gas. Of course this does not happen, because it is politically unpopular to enact legislation that broadly forces people to lower consumption. So we end up with these discriminatory band aids where you get screwed if you do not have sufficient political clout.
- derefr 5y ago
  The objective is presumably to incentivize increased electrical efficiency in devices, by banning inefficient electrical devices. The goal wouldn't be to decrease consumption; it would be to increase the amount of useful work done while holding consumption constant.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago

snowwrestler 5y ago

The issue is idle power draw, so it’s more like banning a Ford F150 that cannot be turned off when it’s not being driven. Imagine if your neighbor got a car that just sat in the driveway with its engine running 24 hours per day.

kcb 5y ago
Bad analogy. This is idle power not off power.
- rrss 5y ago
  it's a much better analogy than wrycoder's. cars don't generally have long-term idle states like computers do.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]