3 ms·
The only graphs the relate energy consumption to anything else within the same graphs are 1) a curve implying we ought to be using 400 kW per capital use of con
by quink 2y ago
The only graphs the relate energy consumption to anything else within the same graphs are 1) a curve implying we ought to be using 400 kW per capital use of continuously, enough to power hundreds of homes most of the time and 2) one that shows GDP flying off with no regard for per capital use of consumption of power.
I feel compelled to ask, how are you using your personal 400 kW today? Surely you must be using that amount since you think it’s vital to your personal prosperity. Is it Bitcoin mining or… honestly I can’t think of anything else?
> That would increase measured energy consumption per capita.
Not if the water is heated I would have thought is the understood assumption. But if you want to wash them in near enough ice water while pumping a substation into your crypto operation, then you do you.
Also, congrats. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a bolder claim than calling the US stock market since 1970 an underperformer. Let us know that we evidently don’t, but make sure you’re not backtesting there with 50 years of hindsight. Make a prediction of similar boldness. I’m probably not gonna put money on that though, just wanna put that up my index fund investing front.
- roenxi 2y ago1. It is "per capita" not "per capital". 2. All the graphs relate to energy, energy is the economy. It is literally impossible to fabricate/transport any good or run any service without some sort of energy consumption happening. The reason the energy trend matters so much is because it leads every activity. > I feel compelled to ask, how are you using your personal 400 kW today? There is, and I speak with a great deal of literalness when I say this, no aspect of either of our lifestyles that doesn't involve consuming energy. I suspect you have a poor understanding of what energy is. > Also, congrats. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a bolder claim than calling the US stock market since 1970 an underperformer An economy isn't the stock market. And I don't know how you made that mistake since just in another of your post you were complaining that too much money was going to billionaires! The stock market has been going great, the economy has been going so-so trending towards poorly.
- quink 2y agoI mean I’m of the weird belief that moving an item from point A to point B fundamentally uses, more or less, amount of energy x regardless of whether it’s 1950 or 2000 or 2050, but if you want to make the laws of Physics obey exponential growth to make sure we all remain economically prosperous then good luck to you. Maybe not in this universe, but good luck to you nevertheless. And yeah that was a typo. I guess that’s what happens when you use but a few watts on a mobile phone instead of an AI on the latest RTX to burn the equivalent half a log for every letter. I guess I’m not respecting the needs of the economy too much by doing that, eh?