5 ms·
that's how i felt about social networking. People posting their breakfast, ridiculous. Baby pictures, silly. Cat pictures, kids these days. Yet somehow the vani
by cblconfederate 5y ago
that's how i felt about social networking. People posting their breakfast, ridiculous. Baby pictures, silly. Cat pictures, kids these days. Yet somehow the vanity/reality show is making billions 10 years later
- clpm4j 5y agoAdvertising won't quit.
- cblconfederate 5y agoadvertising avoided social networks until it didn't.
- netheril96 5y agoI remember how Hacker News laughed at Facebook during its IPO. Hacker News are also against Google, TikTok, Snap, Instagram all the time. Investing against the popular opinions of Hacker News is an easy way to get rich.
- paulgb 5y agoI found the FB thread because I’m always curious how predictions on here pan out. I haven’t read every comment but I’d disagree with the perception that they were laughed at; the consensus seemed to be mildly positive. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3540158 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3540158
- netheril96 5y agoFacebook stock dropped a lot after IPO. That is when Hacker News laughed at it. People rejoiced that the evil company was abandoned by the market. Sorry I cannot find out the exact post.
- Ygg2 5y agoI hope Facebook does not guzzle same amount of energy as Bitcoin. We don't need another nation level energy guzzler for a spy/disinformation network.
- shagie 5y agoAn article from a bit ago to put approximate scale of the services - https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ethicallivingblog/2009/jan/12/carbon-emissions-google https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ethicallivingblog/20... > Climate researchers say two Google searches emit 7g of CO2 – the same as boiling an electric kettle. > ... > If Wissner-Gross is correct then 3,500 tonnes of CO2 (500m x 0.000007 tonnes) are emitted every day through all of us performing Google searches. Or put another way, 1.28m tonnes a year. That's about the same as Laos emits each year, the 151st biggest emitting country in the world. Compare: https://fortune.com/2021/11/06/offsetting-bitcoins-carbon-footprint-would-require-planting-300-million-new-trees/ https://fortune.com/2021/11/06/offsetting-bitcoins-carbon-fo... > All told, Bitcoin emits—by Forex Suggest’s estimate—some 57 million tons of CO2 annually, more than double Ethereum’s footprint. It’s noteworthy that for Bitcoin, all that energy generates a relatively low number of transactions. Because its distributed network is so slow, its users post only around 12,000 purchases, sales, and transfers on the blockchain each hour. That’s approximately 115 million transactions a year. By contrast, Ethereum handles over four times those volumes—devouring, once again, far less than half the juice. The result: Bitcoin deploys an incredible 707 kWh of electricity per transaction, 11 times as much as Ethereum, and emits 1,061 pounds, or half a ton, of CO2 every time you tap the app to buy a latte or zap a fraction to a buddy who beat you on a golf bet. Ethereum sends less than one-tenth of that carbon skyward for each purchase or transfer it processes. ---- So, roughly, bitcoin has a footprint that is ~45x larger than Google search. Facebook is probably lighter than that, though that's only a "its probably lighter than that" guess.
- biztos 5y agoWhoa, so Ethereum is burning 64 kWh per transaction? I wonder if there is any mapping of “gas” to electricity. I guess it would have to be approximate but still, it’d be interesting to estimate how much electricity a particular smart contract consumed per execution.
- Karrot_Kream 5y agoThis is what happens when you try to judge large demographics based on the cultural preferences of you and milieu. "Dewey Wins" and all that.