You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
-41 points
*

172 TWh per year

Your statement was as useful as the following: A VW Polo car costumes 3000 liters of fuel.

*Edit: Downvote me all you want 😂 if I am right I am right.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

So, is Watt-hours/unit-time no longer a meaningful unit?

Because, if so, you better tell every power company I’ve had, because that’s how they’ve billed me.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

WattHours is a unit of work. If you say that bitcoin uses x amount of Wh it doesn’t say shit about how much it actually consumes. Because you don’t say in what amount of time Bitcoin uses said amount of work, you cannot compare it. I could state, that Bitcoin uses 5 Wh. Which would also be correct.

Its the same as saying, Bob eats 5 apples. Alice eats 2000 apples. Can you compare the two? No, because what I forgot to mention is, that Bon eats 5 apples a week and Alice eats 2000 apples in 3 years. Now i can compare the two.

Do you get my point?

permalink
report
parent
reply
54 points
*

In 2023, Microsoft and Google consumed 48 TWh of electricity (24 TWh each).

Your point?

The data in the article was for one year. This is the same unit.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-14 points
*

The comment was 172TWh without specifying a timeframe whatsoever. Is it a year? Is it a day? A month?

It was about the comment about bitcoin, not the post itself.

permalink
report
parent
reply
31 points

That’s the same timeframe as the one used in the article, and sure, they could have made it explicit again, but implicitly it makes sense because it’s the one that’s useful for a direct comparison.

Turns out, the implicit timeframe that should be clear after reading the article was the right one, and it’s pretty damning for bitcoin as is. So again, I am not sure what point you want to make.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

The downvotes aren’t because you’re wrong, they’re because you’re bring obnoxious about being right.

permalink
report
parent
reply
22 points

In 2023, the two tech companies

The article is also about per year

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Yes it is. But your comment still doesn’t make sense until you add “per year”.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Technology

!technology@lemmy.world

Create post

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


Community stats

  • 15K

    Monthly active users

  • 6.7K

    Posts

  • 153K

    Comments