21–30 of 111 posts
I fail to see how a progressive residential energy tax wouldn’t have been the better option but I’m super jacked to see progress being made, even if it is a tad misguided.
Previous discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27954946 The top comment explains why this is probably a good thing.
...I feel like this topic is oddly confusing.
At a minimum, at least this is ideologically consistent with wanting to ban bitcoin, since both consume approximately the same order of magnitude of energy.
It feels wrong to ban the sale of a product on the basis that "it might be used on the electrical grid". There is nothing stopping me from buying a PC and running it on my own off grid solution. If the power companies don't like my power consumption, they should simply implement solutions on their end, like charging me more money proportional to my usage.
It feels wrong to ban the sale of a product on the basis that "it might be used on the electrical grid". There is nothing stopping me from buying a PC and running it on my own off grid solution. If the power companies don't like my power consumption, they should simply implement solutions on their end, like charging me more money proportional to my usage.
It feels wrong to ban the sale of a product on the basis that "it might be used on the electrical grid". There is nothing stopping me from buying a PC and running it on my own off grid solution. If the power companies don't like my power consumption, they should simply implement solutions on their end, like charging me more money proportional to my usage.
In this specific instance the consumer is being done a favor by being prevented from buying terrible prebuilts, but the law is absurd.
To reduce emissions, they've started targeting the gaming industry? The meat industry emits orders of magnitude more pollution (even relative to the number of users of each)! Obviously, politicians would lose favor for targeting the meat industry, and thus have avoided fixing measures which would actually reduce emissions. > They list consoles with taking a bulk of the emissions at 66%, and desktop computers at 31%.…
Its a law about how much energy PCs can use. Consoles aren't exempt; they're just not PCs.
They'd probably be allowed anyway because the law is about how much energy is used when the machine is idle, and consoles are pretty efficient when they're not doing much.