4 ms·

> Maybe consider your carbon footprint when performing that next full code compile? Why "Carbon footprint" is a lie. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AKR2j

> Maybe consider your carbon footprint when performing that next full code compile? Why "Carbon footprint" is a lie. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AKR2j4CymosDtmfEoDt2geSCtk9QoyyXBb2QdBj4jkE/edit https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AKR2j4CymosDtmfEoDt2geSC... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1J9LOqiXdpE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1J9LOqiXdpE https://medium.com/woodworkers-of-the-world-unite/your-carbon-footprint-is-a-lie-b5318ed65cfb https://medium.com/woodworkers-of-the-world-unite/your-carbo... That said being efficient is not a bad idea. There is a market for chips with less power consumption. A 250GB seasonal DL is kinda wasteful. But the solution to climate change (and it's not a crisis) is not atoning for our eco-sins. That's a misapplication of the JudeoChristian myth of sin/salvation.

Damogran6 5y ago
I'm thinking Carbon footprint is shorthand for other wasteful consumption behaviors. Likewise, things like trading carbon-credits is also a boondoggle. Keep doing what you're doing, so long as someone else uses less carbon and can trade.
- brimble 5y ago
  Implemented correctly, a carbon credit market ought to be putting economic pressure on everyone to use power more efficiently, or to switch to renewables. It's supposed to be the market-based conservative approach to regulating externalities in a commons—allow companies to do what they like, but make them pay for it, while encouraging others who can cut back or switch to do so in order to sell credits on the market, or at least to stop paying for their own. Doesn't mean a particular implementation of it will be any good, but the idea is sound.
  - kleer001 5y ago
    Cap and trade for sulphur dioxide and IMHO it worked pretty well (where's the acid rain anymore?) : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnrFuat458g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnrFuat458g https://www.hks.harvard.edu/publications/us-sulphur-dioxide-cap-and-trade-programme-and-lessons-climate-policy https://www.hks.harvard.edu/publications/us-sulphur-dioxide-...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
ruined 5y ago
as the people who build the tools, tech workers have sightly more responsibility here than any random individual
- kleer001 5y ago
  I would say that the managers and business owners have that power you're pointing at. IMHO the code monkey implementing solution XYZ could use more power efficient solution ABC, but it'd take 20% longer or cost 10% more and Manager/Owner doesn't want to pay that as its an externalized cost and will cut into their profits this year. This is the essence of the tragedy of the commons. Solution? Price everything. EVERYTHING.
  - tonyedgecombe 5y ago
    I've seen much more sloppy programming because the individual programmer didn't care compared to a manager demanding it.
    - kleer001 5y ago
      Ok. That's not what I'm pointing towards. But I see your point. My point is that a manager and/or own would need to demand power efficient code and processes and the normal day to day business (like normal day to day nature) would be happy with code-that-does-the-job-just-good-enough-not-to-melt-down.

Damogran6 5y ago

I'm thinking Carbon footprint is shorthand for other wasteful consumption behaviors. Likewise, things like trading carbon-credits is also a boondoggle. Keep doing what you're doing, so long as someone else uses less carbon and can trade.

brimble 5y ago
Implemented correctly, a carbon credit market ought to be putting economic pressure on everyone to use power more efficiently, or to switch to renewables. It's supposed to be the market-based conservative approach to regulating externalities in a commons—allow companies to do what they like, but make them pay for it, while encouraging others who can cut back or switch to do so in order to sell credits on the market, or at least to stop paying for their own. Doesn't mean a particular implementation of it will be any good, but the idea is sound.
- kleer001 5y ago
  Cap and trade for sulphur dioxide and IMHO it worked pretty well (where's the acid rain anymore?) : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnrFuat458g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnrFuat458g https://www.hks.harvard.edu/publications/us-sulphur-dioxide-cap-and-trade-programme-and-lessons-climate-policy https://www.hks.harvard.edu/publications/us-sulphur-dioxide-...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

ruined 5y ago

as the people who build the tools, tech workers have sightly more responsibility here than any random individual

kleer001 5y ago
I would say that the managers and business owners have that power you're pointing at. IMHO the code monkey implementing solution XYZ could use more power efficient solution ABC, but it'd take 20% longer or cost 10% more and Manager/Owner doesn't want to pay that as its an externalized cost and will cut into their profits this year. This is the essence of the tragedy of the commons. Solution? Price everything. EVERYTHING.
- tonyedgecombe 5y ago
  I've seen much more sloppy programming because the individual programmer didn't care compared to a manager demanding it.
  - kleer001 5y ago
    Ok. That's not what I'm pointing towards. But I see your point. My point is that a manager and/or own would need to demand power efficient code and processes and the normal day to day business (like normal day to day nature) would be happy with code-that-does-the-job-just-good-enough-not-to-melt-down.