Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

To decarbonize we must decomputerize: why we need a Luddite revolution

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 59 posts

Re: To decarbonize we must decomputerize: why we need a Luddite revolution

#31

Post by Robotbeat »

There's a surprising amount you can do with just 8-bit microcontrollers which on average (using extensive low-power mode) use less energy than a housefly. Performance can be as good as 1 microwatt per MIPS. We could run most "smart device" applications off of those little solar cells used for calculators.

For house applications, virtually any kind of efficiency gain that computerization gives us would offset the energy consumed in computation.

The problem is not the presence of computing, it's that fossil energy does not pay for its externalities.

Which isn't to say that computation-intensive ads aren't the worst thing ever.... And it does seem that some of the most hype-driven applications of digitization rely on exceedingly (and often intentionally) inefficient algorithms (blockchain and deep learning), but overall digitization can often be done with very little energy usage for the same benefit. I'm reminded of this cellphone that works on about 4 milliwatts. (although granted, it's using wireless electricity) https://www.wired.com/story/this-cell-phone-can-make-calls-e...

Re: To decarbonize we must decomputerize: why we need a Luddite revolution

#32

Post by alkonaut »

ebetica0 wrote: post #25
alkonaut wrote: post #8

Stop computering in places where fossile fuel is used for electricity. Build datacenters next to cheap renewable or nuclear energy and access cold air and water. There are hundreds of abandoned industry sites near lakes and rivers in Northern Europe for example.

Believe it or not, cooling is almost never the bottleneck, aircooled datacenters can be built in relatively warm places like virginia. The infrastructure for datacenters is often the bottleneck - each one takes up the electricity of a small town and many out-of-the-way places don't have the infrastructure set up to support such things, nor do the local renewables provide enough energy to run the datacenters.

Yes the data enters need to be built in small towns with the energy production large cities or small countries, such as Facebook near the massive hydro plants in Luleå, Sweden.

Re: To decarbonize we must decomputerize: why we need a Luddite revolution

#33

Post by merpnderp »

No one is voluntarily giving up progress, ML or not. The far easier sell to the public is a faster move to nuclear, wind, and solar, with battery powered cars. Then we won't need a Luddite revolution, and progress can continue making lives better.

Re: To decarbonize we must decomputerize: why we need a Luddite revolution

#34

Post by rubinelli »

kgwxd wrote: post #21
aiCeivi9 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hoped huge popularity of adblock would do the same, without the need for regulation. No need for clickbait title when visitors are only a cost.

If Mobile Safari and Chrome for Android supported extensions, it probably would already be ubiquitous.

I switched to Firefox for Android after getting tired of ads that redirected to a landing page or Google Play and prevented me from actually using the site I wanted.

Re: To decarbonize we must decomputerize: why we need a Luddite revolution

#35

Post by russdill »

"Computers are stupid: babies know what a face is within the first few months of being alive. For a computer to know what a face is, it must learn by looking at millions of pictures of faces."

Actually this is a completely inaccurate representation. The network to understand a human face can be transferred to a computer in milliseconds. The network to understand a human face gets baked into a human over many many months. Developing that network took a computer millions of images and several hours. Developing that network took biology many eons and billions of lifeforms.

Re: To decarbonize we must decomputerize: why we need a Luddite revolution

#36

Post by gshubert17 »

huntie wrote: post #27
xvedejas wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A Carbon tax would also disproportionately help the poor, especially the global poor, so it's not fair to call it regressive without finding a way to put some numbers on both the costs and benefits. Besides, the money gained from a carbon tax isn't lost, it can be reinvested in things like public transit infrastructure.

Public transit is not viable in most of the US.

> Public transit is not viable in most of the US.

Since many US cities had public transit a century ago (and don't today), I wonder if you mean technically viable, economically viable, or politically attainable. I'm guessing the latter, and it's sad.

Re: To decarbonize we must decomputerize: why we need a Luddite revolution

#37

Post by fock »

maliker wrote: post #18
KaiserPro wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes, but the masts, wifi, network and servers to support that consume a lot more than 10Wh

I'd guess the energy costs would be similar since it's roughly the same hardware (CPUs, memory, radio transmitters) but minus the display.

just having a lot higher transmission power and a lot of supporting hardware to keep things running for seasons (have you ever used your mobile phone in -10°C for an extended time - could you?) and years. I just did a little googling and found something like "total power consumption of all mobile phones in India"x15 (can't get the link, because of, well there's another comment for that...)

Re: To decarbonize we must decomputerize: why we need a Luddite revolution

#38

Post by russdill »

This article is completely wrong headed. Any profit heavy use of energy can be a boon to decarbonization. The price of renewables has been plummeting due mostly to economy of scale but also to funding of new developments. At current prices, it only takes a nudge of incentive or regulation to push new energy use to renewables. And it's a feedback loop, the more renewables get used, the cheaper their production becomes.

Re: To decarbonize we must decomputerize: why we need a Luddite revolution

#39

Post by Someone »

xvedejas wrote: post #19
maximente wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

carbon taxes are regressive insofar as the poor spend a larger % of their income on fuels than the rich and this is often not negotiable - people can't choose to e.g. not commute half an hour to work when they don't have much disposable income to start with, whereas the rich can generally pay for whatever quantity they want to consume already. so the point of the tax (reduce consumption) unfairly hits the poor.

A Carbon tax would also disproportionately help the poor, especially the global poor, so it's not fair to call it regressive without finding a way to put some numbers on both the costs and benefits. Besides, the money gained from a carbon tax isn't lost, it can be reinvested in things like public transit infrastructure.

You could even use it for a universal basic income. It wouldn’t be enough to live from, but could nudge people to, for example, spend a weekend in “nice city a 100 km train ride away”, rather than “nice city a 2,000 km airplane flight away”.

Re: To decarbonize we must decomputerize: why we need a Luddite revolution

#40

Post by russdill »

russdill wrote: post #38

This article is completely wrong headed. Any profit heavy use of energy can be a boon to decarbonization. The price of renewables has been plummeting due mostly to economy of scale but also to funding of new developments. At current prices, it only takes a nudge of incentive or regulation to push new energy use to renewables. And it's a feedback loop, the more renewables get used, the cheaper their production becomes…

Governments that continue to subsidize fossil fuel industries while failing to properly incentivize renewable or regulate/tax carbon emissions are the thing that holds the feedback loop back.
Post reply on HN