4 ms·
No one in the parent posts has said anything about "literally zero people". The OP made a claim ("invented in 2017"), and this very claim is being criticized.
by pelario 5y ago
No one in the parent posts has said anything about "literally zero people".
The OP made a claim ("invented in 2017"), and this very claim is being criticized.
I found perplexing that you interpret the very same words in almost opposite ways.
- teknopaul 5y agoI cant find it again but I read an article about how brightness goes up with technology and human spend roughly the same proportion of income on light. Kind of disproving the led efficiency is good for the environment argument. Not revolutionary, better to break that pattern.
- uoaei 5y agoYou contradict yourself. If humans spend same proportion of income on lumens, and you get more lumens per watt, then you will use less wattage per the same proportion of income. Ergo LEDs are more efficient.
- zargon 5y agoAre you thinking about the cost of the physical lights? Because what is being discussed is the cost of energy.
- uoaei 5y agoWatt-hours are energy. If cost of energy is decreasing and you get more lumens per watt with LEDs then the benefits stack, they do not cancel.
- zargon 5y agoIf energy price is going down, then even more watts are being bought (since spending is fixed).
- uoaei 5y agoNot all those watts are going into lighting. If spending is fixed on lighting but total expenditure is up that means energy is being bought for things other than lighting. Kirchoff's law applied to the grid in toto. Adds up considering the proliferation of computing devices, particularly cryptomining.