4 ms·

Data centers / the internet are not ecological either: Similar energy consumption as the airline sector. (And that a significant part is wasted on running ads

Data centers / the internet are not ecological either: Similar energy consumption as the airline sector. (And that a significant part is wasted on running ads doesn't make it any better.)

walteweiss 3y ago
This is valid statement. But I assume that will get much better over time, as computers are getting more energy efficient, which could change a lot en masse. Delivery of disks is harder to optimise, as you cannot just teleport them as easily.
- developer93 3y ago
  In practice it doesn't though. Greater efficiency just leads to higher usage, if you look into it. Total emissions go up, this is why we can't just technology our way out of this thing. We need to actually reduce total emissions not just per unit.
  - mighmi 3y ago
    This is called Jevon's paradox.
  - rightbyte 3y ago
    I guess the fundamental problem is that there is money in showing webpages for the sake of it, due to ads. It is like litter. Paper ads are somewhat limited due to consumer complaining about having their mailboxes filled with them and someone has to go there and put it in and can't avoid a homeowner guarding the mailbox if they would force the issue. Using e.g. uBlock Origin might be the most impact for no effort environmentally friendly thing you could possibly do.
  - Brybry 3y ago
    US residential electricity usage per capita has been relatively flat for a decade or two[1] so I think efficiency increases can offset higher usage. In regards to Netflix I suspect there's a streaming bandwidth plateau we will hit (if we have not already): there are only so many hours per day people can watch content, population growth isn't that strong (and can't increase forever), and video resolution then becomes the driver of increased data use (and that probably can't increase forever either). [1] https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=49036 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=49036
    - usr1106 3y ago
      In the US pollution per capita is one of the highest on the planet. So flat electricity consumption is not really sufficient to save the planet. A significant reduction would be needed.
Eduard 3y ago
[flagged]
midoridensha 3y ago
>(And that a significant part is wasted on running ads doesn't make it any better.) Right, which is why it's a moral imperative to use an ad-blocker. Ad-blockers avoid displaying ads, which reduces CPU usage for displaying those ads, thus reducing power wastage, and helping the planet.
- usr1106 3y ago
  And selecting the pages you visit. I have yet to see ads on HN, Wikipedia and similar :) Yes, I do visit pages with few ads. But tye worst offenders are on my mental black list. I just don't visit them. And I pay for ad-free versions of what I really find worth paying for (Unfortunately that's still not offered widely enough, and sometimes a yearly subscription seems overhead. I mean in the old days people bought a magazine or journal at the station just because the felt like reading it occasionally. But now in our great internet this is typically not possible.)
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  > Right, which is why it's a moral imperative to use an ad-blocker. Ad-blockers avoid displaying ads, which reduces CPU usage for displaying those ads, thus reducing power wastage, and helping the planet. You shouldn't be special-casing the ads that pay for the pages you visit. All of the tech behind the page is equally good or bad in this sense.
  - pbhjpbhj 3y ago
    They're not special-casing ads, surely. the page content is desired by the user, creating a benefit. The ad "content" is not desired, create a deficit, paying with CPU time for a deficit is moronic. Just because someone tries to give you an advertising flyer as you walk by, doesn't mean you should take it.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      > the page content is desired by the user, creating a benefit That doesn't mean there isn't by the OP's logic a moral imperative to not look at that content, due to the environmental impact. My point is that same imperative should apply equally. > Just because someone tries to give you an advertising flyer as you walk by, doesn't mean you should take it. That's a bad analogy, unless someone holding a flyer out pays for a service you consumed.
bawolff 3y ago
I would assume in a direct comparison - streaming a couple gb from a data center is probably much more environmentally friendly than moving a physical disk across the country.
- necovek 3y ago
  Only if you need to stream/ship it a huge number of times. It would depend on the specifics of each implementation, but shipping 10 discs total over a year is likely to be more efficient than to keep streaming infrastructure up and running for that one movie. Obviously, the same streaming infrastructure would be used for other content, but how many (unpopular) shows are only watched a few times a year yet they take valuable infrastructure capacity? And then we get into lack of popularity leading into obsolecence, and we are now talking a much wider topic.
  - bawolff 3y ago
    > but how many (unpopular) shows are only watched a few times a year yet they take valuable infrastructure capacity? Disk space is cheap. I would assume that they don't really take infrastructure capacity.
- im_z 3y ago
  Well they had 50 distribution centres in the past. It wasn't across the country then.

Data centers / the internet are not ecological either: Similar energy consumption as the airline sector. (And that a significant part is wasted on running ads doesn't make it any better.)

walteweiss 3y ago

This is valid statement. But I assume that will get much better over time, as computers are getting more energy efficient, which could change a lot en masse. Delivery of disks is harder to optimise, as you cannot just teleport them as easily.

developer93 3y ago
In practice it doesn't though. Greater efficiency just leads to higher usage, if you look into it. Total emissions go up, this is why we can't just technology our way out of this thing. We need to actually reduce total emissions not just per unit.
- mighmi 3y ago
  This is called Jevon's paradox.
- rightbyte 3y ago
  I guess the fundamental problem is that there is money in showing webpages for the sake of it, due to ads. It is like litter. Paper ads are somewhat limited due to consumer complaining about having their mailboxes filled with them and someone has to go there and put it in and can't avoid a homeowner guarding the mailbox if they would force the issue. Using e.g. uBlock Origin might be the most impact for no effort environmentally friendly thing you could possibly do.
- Brybry 3y ago
  US residential electricity usage per capita has been relatively flat for a decade or two[1] so I think efficiency increases can offset higher usage. In regards to Netflix I suspect there's a streaming bandwidth plateau we will hit (if we have not already): there are only so many hours per day people can watch content, population growth isn't that strong (and can't increase forever), and video resolution then becomes the driver of increased data use (and that probably can't increase forever either). [1] https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=49036 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=49036
  - usr1106 3y ago
    In the US pollution per capita is one of the highest on the planet. So flat electricity consumption is not really sufficient to save the planet. A significant reduction would be needed.

Eduard 3y ago

[flagged]

midoridensha 3y ago

>(And that a significant part is wasted on running ads doesn't make it any better.) Right, which is why it's a moral imperative to use an ad-blocker. Ad-blockers avoid displaying ads, which reduces CPU usage for displaying those ads, thus reducing power wastage, and helping the planet.

usr1106 3y ago
And selecting the pages you visit. I have yet to see ads on HN, Wikipedia and similar :) Yes, I do visit pages with few ads. But tye worst offenders are on my mental black list. I just don't visit them. And I pay for ad-free versions of what I really find worth paying for (Unfortunately that's still not offered widely enough, and sometimes a yearly subscription seems overhead. I mean in the old days people bought a magazine or journal at the station just because the felt like reading it occasionally. But now in our great internet this is typically not possible.)
robertlagrant 3y ago
> Right, which is why it's a moral imperative to use an ad-blocker. Ad-blockers avoid displaying ads, which reduces CPU usage for displaying those ads, thus reducing power wastage, and helping the planet. You shouldn't be special-casing the ads that pay for the pages you visit. All of the tech behind the page is equally good or bad in this sense.
- pbhjpbhj 3y ago
  They're not special-casing ads, surely. the page content is desired by the user, creating a benefit. The ad "content" is not desired, create a deficit, paying with CPU time for a deficit is moronic. Just because someone tries to give you an advertising flyer as you walk by, doesn't mean you should take it.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    > the page content is desired by the user, creating a benefit That doesn't mean there isn't by the OP's logic a moral imperative to not look at that content, due to the environmental impact. My point is that same imperative should apply equally. > Just because someone tries to give you an advertising flyer as you walk by, doesn't mean you should take it. That's a bad analogy, unless someone holding a flyer out pays for a service you consumed.

bawolff 3y ago

I would assume in a direct comparison - streaming a couple gb from a data center is probably much more environmentally friendly than moving a physical disk across the country.

necovek 3y ago
Only if you need to stream/ship it a huge number of times. It would depend on the specifics of each implementation, but shipping 10 discs total over a year is likely to be more efficient than to keep streaming infrastructure up and running for that one movie. Obviously, the same streaming infrastructure would be used for other content, but how many (unpopular) shows are only watched a few times a year yet they take valuable infrastructure capacity? And then we get into lack of popularity leading into obsolecence, and we are now talking a much wider topic.
- bawolff 3y ago
  > but how many (unpopular) shows are only watched a few times a year yet they take valuable infrastructure capacity? Disk space is cheap. I would assume that they don't really take infrastructure capacity.
im_z 3y ago
Well they had 50 distribution centres in the past. It wasn't across the country then.