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

German digital signage ban prompts confusion

avinteractive.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 457 posts

Re: German digital signage ban prompts confusion

#411

Post by pvorb »

polycaster wrote: post #163
morsch wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Average power usage for a 1 person household in Germany is 1300 kwh/year (roughly, numbers vary, but not to a degree that it matters). That's about 150W sustained. So 1500W for a large sign, that's like 150 high power LED light bulbs, I guess that checks out. Anything that reduces ads in the public sphere is fine by me.

Not sure where this number comes from. Statistisches Bundesamt says it's 1,958 kwh. https://www.destatis.de/EN/Themes/Society-Environment/Enviro... Interestingly, for 2 person households they state 3,196 kwh and for 3+ person households 4,919 kwh. Energy consumption scales worse than I expected. I assumed there would be more synergy in shared households.

My household has seen 1800 kWh of electricity consumption in 2021, a year in which I worked a full-time job on a computer and two displays at home. So did my wife. We have two little children.

While we might not be close to the average consumption in Germany, because our house is quite new, I'm regularly wondering what other households are doing with that much energy.

Re: German digital signage ban prompts confusion

#412

Post by fyvhbhn »

someguydave wrote: post #354
fyvhbhn wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There may be plenty of uranium. However there isn't plenty available for easy extraction. "Is nuclear energy green" Sabine Hossenfelder

I respect Sabine but I am skeptical about the paper she puts forth about limited uranium supplies. See the late Prof. MacKay’s work on the subject, considering fast breeder reactors to reuse the fuel and ocean extraction of uranium: https://www.withouthotair.com/c24/page_164.shtml

I am talking about current tech, not Future tech

Re: German digital signage ban prompts confusion

#413

Post by newaccount74 »

Symbiote wrote: post #243
jansan wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can also shower in the rain. I have seen people doing it in the 90s in Hannover on the occupied "Sprengelgelände".

Clothes and bedclothes dried outside are much nicer than the same dried in a tumble dryer. I don't have space (I live in an apartment), but I regularly did this in England. It takes slightly more time to hang them out vs. stuff them in the dryer, and (in England) you need to keep an eye on the weather, but they end up smelling fresher. A good dose of UV light probably helps.

UV is also great at making some food stains disappear.

Re: German digital signage ban prompts confusion

#414

Post by krisoft »

morsch wrote: post #398
krisoft wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> during the summer, clothes dry indoors in ~4h, > drying clothes indoors has no ill effects Maybe the first is why you think the second is always true? Where I live if I just leave laundry on a drying rack it won't dry for days, and once it is dryish it already smells stale and mouldy. I'm glad that it works for you, but maybe the advice differs based on location, climate, maybe even architectural choices.

That's literally what they said in their first sentence.

Yes, and no.

They started out right and acknowledged that things can be different in different climates. But then in their second paragraph they made a categorical statement: “Still, drying clothes indoors has no ill effects, I have no idea where you got this.”

That is a general statement. They don’t think drying clothes indoors can have any ill effects. Ever. At any humidity level.

So they realise that the drying time can change quantitatively. What they miss is that there are qualitative effects which can happen too. And in their hurry they dismiss other people’s lived experience.

Re: German digital signage ban prompts confusion

#415

Post by 1123581321 »

throw827474737 wrote: post #187
sidkshatriya wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That is pretty high for no real value for society in my opinion... There is a widespread belief that Advertising serves no purpose to humanity. Advertising is like anything in life: In high doses it is harmful. In lower doses it is useful. If there are regulators in your country that prevent advertisers from making false claims, even better. Advertising has helped me hone onto products and services in my whole life…

> However, Advertising in itself is useful. Total disagree. New trends, improvements communicate itself one or the other way. If I want a new X, I'd rather research on my own, best are objective tests, or worse then selective advertisements I choose to view. Even non-aggressive mild advertisements that just try to snatch my attention involuntarily are just not needed and a pain. The world could be much better without…

You’re just negotiating who pays for searching and communication. You want to pay someone (a magazine or review site) to gather the data for you from the companies. Other people want the companies to pay so they get the information for free.

There’s a qualitative argument there as well, and whether to value not having to pay for ad-supported publications and services, but that’s essentially the question in the preference for or against advertising: who pays and who gets paid to make the right buyers and sellers aware of each other.

Re: German digital signage ban prompts confusion

#416

Post by someguydave »

fyvhbhn wrote: post #412
someguydave wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I respect Sabine but I am skeptical about the paper she puts forth about limited uranium supplies. See the late Prof. MacKay’s work on the subject, considering fast breeder reactors to reuse the fuel and ocean extraction of uranium: https://www.withouthotair.com/c24/page_164.shtml

I am talking about current tech, not Future tech

Breeder reactors and seawater mining are current tech.

Also, this seems like an extreme luddite attitude. Imagine refusing to use a steam engine because nobody has demonstrated infinite coal reserves exist.

Re: German digital signage ban prompts confusion

#417

Post by someguydave »

DocTomoe wrote: post #384
someguydave wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same Russia invading Europe on its eastern borders? Hasn’t dependence on Russian gas earned some suspicions among ordinary Germans?

Actually, Russia has a track record of being a reliable provider of gas in worse situations than we are in today, reaching back to times when the Cold War was at its hottest. Outside of big media and some very ideologically-kosher circles, public opinion seems to be 'leave us our peace about that whole war business, make sure energy prices are sinking to an acceptable level again', with the mood becoming more explosi…

The Cold war never involved a large scale Russian invasion. Do you really think Russia will stop at the Polish border if they make it that far?

Re: German digital signage ban prompts confusion

#418

Post by seba_dos1 »

wickedsickeune wrote: post #218
yrro wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, yes I do. We're doing incalculable damage to animal life (e.g., disrupting birds and insects which are essential pollinators for plants). This is but one facet of the crisis that our species has inflicted upon the planet.

The real problem is that the disruption to animal life will eventually affect human lives too, so you don't really have to choose.

That's not what makes the problem "real" at all, even though you're technically right.

Re: German digital signage ban prompts confusion

#419

Post by Beltalowda »

cyborgx7 wrote: post #28
yrro wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At first I loved LED street lights because I could see so much better by them (and I presume that they have an increased deterrent effect on crime though I have not checked this). These days I think disrupting wildlife is more important than human safety and I wish we could get rid of nearly all street lighting.

I wonder if the ubiquitousness of people carrying flashlights in the form of smartphones could be leveraged into doing away with street lights as an expected practice. I don't think I would actually support that, but I think that kind of shift in culture is a possibility right now.

Much of the time using a flashlight is superfluous, or even counter-productive, if it's not pitch black, unless you have very poor night vision. Your eyes will never adjust to the dark and you will end up seeing less.

Re: German digital signage ban prompts confusion

#420

Post by adrianN »

phh wrote: post #252
adrianN wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Homes are heated with gas, not with nuclear power. Industrial processes run on gas, not on nuclear power.

If there's no gas, most homes can heat with electricity. Turn on your oven, your gaming console, your TV, open your fridge's door, etc. Also as I understand it, it's much easier to do rolling blackouts on electricity than on gas, so gas will be more likely to fail for a long time than electricity. Most industrial processes can be stopped without endangering people.

If people need to start heating homes with electricity, half a dozen old nuclear plants won't save us. You underestimate how much electricity it takes to heat a homes with resistive heaters.
Post reply on HN