Skip to content

UK government suggests deleting files to save water

Technology
26 17 8
  • Sorta like how corporations pushed recycling onto the public to deflect from their own culpability for pollution. Why would we regulate the companies building huge data centers when we can get average people to absorb the cost? It's not like they're making obscene profits while laying off untold thousands.

    I mean, if that was the case, sure, let's have them pay to clean up the waste they generate. But have you seen NVIDIA, Microsoft, or Meta lately? These companies are barely staying in business. Their CEOs can hardly afford to ride the bus to work. Let's cut them a break.

    TLDR: It's your fault the earth is dying because you horde emails.

  • Sorta like how corporations pushed recycling onto the public to deflect from their own culpability for pollution. Why would we regulate the companies building huge data centers when we can get average people to absorb the cost? It's not like they're making obscene profits while laying off untold thousands.

    I mean, if that was the case, sure, let's have them pay to clean up the waste they generate. But have you seen NVIDIA, Microsoft, or Meta lately? These companies are barely staying in business. Their CEOs can hardly afford to ride the bus to work. Let's cut them a break.

    TLDR: It's your fault the earth is dying because you horde emails.

    OP hit the nail on the head. This is once again shifting the blame (and guilt) onto individuals who even collectively have fuck-all impact on the problem in question.

    The worst of it is, some people will believe this shit.

  • Sorta like how corporations pushed recycling onto the public to deflect from their own culpability for pollution. Why would we regulate the companies building huge data centers when we can get average people to absorb the cost? It's not like they're making obscene profits while laying off untold thousands.

    I mean, if that was the case, sure, let's have them pay to clean up the waste they generate. But have you seen NVIDIA, Microsoft, or Meta lately? These companies are barely staying in business. Their CEOs can hardly afford to ride the bus to work. Let's cut them a break.

    TLDR: It's your fault the earth is dying because you horde emails.

    Oh, I was wondering how they were going to make this our fault.

  • Sorta like how corporations pushed recycling onto the public to deflect from their own culpability for pollution. Why would we regulate the companies building huge data centers when we can get average people to absorb the cost? It's not like they're making obscene profits while laying off untold thousands.

    I mean, if that was the case, sure, let's have them pay to clean up the waste they generate. But have you seen NVIDIA, Microsoft, or Meta lately? These companies are barely staying in business. Their CEOs can hardly afford to ride the bus to work. Let's cut them a break.

    TLDR: It's your fault the earth is dying because you horde emails.

    That's not the take-home here. We should regulate large companies, but as ever, individual choices both have direct effects on the environment, and indirect effects which influence the behaviour of a small number of more powerful organisations. Also important is that individual choices in the political realm influence what regulations get made, so we're never absolved of a responsibility to the environment.

    The take-home for me is that the government is using long-discredited statistics relating storage to water usage. Stored emails don't increase water usage by an appreciable percentage.

  • Sorta like how corporations pushed recycling onto the public to deflect from their own culpability for pollution. Why would we regulate the companies building huge data centers when we can get average people to absorb the cost? It's not like they're making obscene profits while laying off untold thousands.

    I mean, if that was the case, sure, let's have them pay to clean up the waste they generate. But have you seen NVIDIA, Microsoft, or Meta lately? These companies are barely staying in business. Their CEOs can hardly afford to ride the bus to work. Let's cut them a break.

    TLDR: It's your fault the earth is dying because you horde emails.

    More processing might result in more water use, but storage? It makes no actual sense. Having more stuff sitting in your storage isn’t making your computer hotter.

    In fact, I guess creating a guideline for servers to use more efficient processors would do much more for that.

  • Sorta like how corporations pushed recycling onto the public to deflect from their own culpability for pollution. Why would we regulate the companies building huge data centers when we can get average people to absorb the cost? It's not like they're making obscene profits while laying off untold thousands.

    I mean, if that was the case, sure, let's have them pay to clean up the waste they generate. But have you seen NVIDIA, Microsoft, or Meta lately? These companies are barely staying in business. Their CEOs can hardly afford to ride the bus to work. Let's cut them a break.

    TLDR: It's your fault the earth is dying because you horde emails.

    triggering the server to delete your email is more energy than leaving it in storage (on a platter disk in some array in a raid)

    the people who thought of that example are ignorant of how data centers work

  • OP hit the nail on the head. This is once again shifting the blame (and guilt) onto individuals who even collectively have fuck-all impact on the problem in question.

    The worst of it is, some people will believe this shit.

    What’s even more infuriating is the numbers of people who fail to recognize that all of these companies sell these goods and services to consumers and it is those consumers who can reduce the demand.

  • Sorta like how corporations pushed recycling onto the public to deflect from their own culpability for pollution. Why would we regulate the companies building huge data centers when we can get average people to absorb the cost? It's not like they're making obscene profits while laying off untold thousands.

    I mean, if that was the case, sure, let's have them pay to clean up the waste they generate. But have you seen NVIDIA, Microsoft, or Meta lately? These companies are barely staying in business. Their CEOs can hardly afford to ride the bus to work. Let's cut them a break.

    TLDR: It's your fault the earth is dying because you horde emails.

    I'll say it again, because I think the idea is a practical solution to the issue: electricity and water usage should be charged at reverse volume, the more you use, the more expensive it becomes.

    This would actually incentivise companies to reduce their usage, to question if they actually need that new AI data centre that will eat up all the gains in renewable electricity production and require fossil fuel plants to continue running, it'll reduce the crypto miners as well, and encourage everyone to try to reduce their usage.

    The knock on effect of this is that electricity actually becomes cheaper for everyone.

  • triggering the server to delete your email is more energy than leaving it in storage (on a platter disk in some array in a raid)

    the people who thought of that example are ignorant of how data centers work

    Also super long term archives are stored on magnetic tapes, they consume virtually 0 energy

  • More processing might result in more water use, but storage? It makes no actual sense. Having more stuff sitting in your storage isn’t making your computer hotter.

    In fact, I guess creating a guideline for servers to use more efficient processors would do much more for that.

    Nope. Server farms are by design made with energy efficiency in mind. You can't push them any further with regulation

  • Also super long term archives are stored on magnetic tapes, they consume virtually 0 energy

    tape storage is for offline storage, and any data storage on it would also be redundant

    writing and reading tape archives takes a lot of computing. usually you have your tape library server and a server hosting the app and then the tape sled. tape takes a lot of energy

    so deleting it electronically is going to take a more energy

    it's more efficient to overwrite it or use a degaussing device to wipe the tape

  • What’s even more infuriating is the numbers of people who fail to recognize that all of these companies sell these goods and services to consumers and it is those consumers who can reduce the demand.

    In the case of AI, even if consumers actively try and avoid products with AI, it's difficult. There are studies showing customers are generally less likely to buy a product if it's described as having AI features, so the overall market demand is already for consumer products to have less AI. The demand companies are catering to is from investors, who don't need to care about whether it's viable to sell anything until after the bubble pops.

  • What’s even more infuriating is the numbers of people who fail to recognize that all of these companies sell these goods and services to consumers and it is those consumers who can reduce the demand.

    There was/is a demand for slavery. Should we wait for these people to realize that maybe owning slaves is not okay and morally wrong? Or should we just outright ban slavery and not give two fucks how "the market forces" view such action? You tell me.

  • There was/is a demand for slavery. Should we wait for these people to realize that maybe owning slaves is not okay and morally wrong? Or should we just outright ban slavery and not give two fucks how "the market forces" view such action? You tell me.

    That’s a false equivalence.

  • Sorta like how corporations pushed recycling onto the public to deflect from their own culpability for pollution. Why would we regulate the companies building huge data centers when we can get average people to absorb the cost? It's not like they're making obscene profits while laying off untold thousands.

    I mean, if that was the case, sure, let's have them pay to clean up the waste they generate. But have you seen NVIDIA, Microsoft, or Meta lately? These companies are barely staying in business. Their CEOs can hardly afford to ride the bus to work. Let's cut them a break.

    TLDR: It's your fault the earth is dying because you horde emails.

    Power off the AI farms that no one wants anyway (except the oligarchs of course)

  • What’s even more infuriating is the numbers of people who fail to recognize that all of these companies sell these goods and services to consumers and it is those consumers who can reduce the demand.

    It's virtually impossible to exist online these days without generative AI bullshit being shoved in your face with no means to opt-out. It's clearly not consumers driving this so-called "demand," because savvy people don't want this to begin with and never did. Rather, it's the desperate speculative hype around this dumb nonproduct that's causing big businesses to set electricity and money on fire with AI slop to no tangible benefit.

    A saner response from the UK government would be to tell these companies to either power their AI datacenters with renewables or get out, rather than trying to guilt trip individuals over, of all the goddamned stupid things, undeleted emails.

  • Sorta like how corporations pushed recycling onto the public to deflect from their own culpability for pollution. Why would we regulate the companies building huge data centers when we can get average people to absorb the cost? It's not like they're making obscene profits while laying off untold thousands.

    I mean, if that was the case, sure, let's have them pay to clean up the waste they generate. But have you seen NVIDIA, Microsoft, or Meta lately? These companies are barely staying in business. Their CEOs can hardly afford to ride the bus to work. Let's cut them a break.

    TLDR: It's your fault the earth is dying because you horde emails.

    ...because you horde emails.

    I've never large-group-of-peopled my emails but have been known to hoard them.

  • That’s a false equivalence.

    Your argument is, correct me if I'm wrong, that the demand for product X always necessetates its production/supply and that supply will cease when there is no more demand.

    A valid argument based on basic market economic principles.

    I argue that there are times, when the demand for something does not outweigh the cost incurred (by the society) from the production and supply of a product. Meaning there are cases, such as this one, when it is almost impossible to decrease demand and thus influence the production which in turn would decrease the cost incurred by the society. In my view, the State has to protect foremost its citizenry, not ginormous enterprises. If this protection means going against "market forces", then so be it.

    Both "products" cause harm to society while only a few benefit, so no, it was not a false equivalence.

    But then again, I could be mistaken and feel free to correct me on anything. :))

  • ...because you horde emails.

    I've never large-group-of-peopled my emails but have been known to hoard them.

    Argh! Caught with a spelling (mis)-substitution twice in two days. Thanks!

  • triggering the server to delete your email is more energy than leaving it in storage (on a platter disk in some array in a raid)

    the people who thought of that example are ignorant of how data centers work

    the people who thought of that example are ignorant of how data centers work

    Almost all politicians are ignorant about tech, yet we let them regulate it. In the worst ways. And fail to regulate it where it ought to be regulated.

  • What's going on with lemmy.org?

    Technology technology
    1
    0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    4 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • The Antioxidant Edge: Inside the Alpha Lipoic Acid Market

    Technology technology
    1
    2
    0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    4 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • Google AI Overview is just affiliate marketing spam now

    Technology technology
    48
    1
    369 Stimmen
    48 Beiträge
    480 Aufrufe
    E
    [image: 33ab121e-a148-4320-95b2-133efb83aa02.webp]
  • Meta Takes Hard Line Against Europe's AI Rules

    Technology technology
    19
    1
    92 Stimmen
    19 Beiträge
    237 Aufrufe
    F
    One part of this is jurisdiction. I'm being very simplistic here and only have a vague sense of the picture, really (my own prejudice - I find just about everything about meta abhorrent) They are based in a country that's solely oritentated towards liberty - not fairness or common sense. There are other parts, of course, like lobbying, tax breaks and so on, but a big part is because they're not based in the EU.
  • 75 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    35 Aufrufe
    nkat2112@sh.itjust.worksN
    This is beautiful - and a noble service for humanity. Thank you for posting this, OP!
  • Signal – an ethical replacement for WhatsApp

    Technology technology
    235
    1
    1k Stimmen
    235 Beiträge
    5k Aufrufe
    V
    What I said is that smart people can be convinced to move to another platform. Most of my friends are not technically inclined, but it was easy to make them use it, at least to chat with me. What you did is change "smart people" with "people who already want to move", which is not the same. You then said it's not something you can choose (as you cannot choose to be rich). But I answered that you can actually choose your friends. Never did I say people who are not interested in niche technologies are not smart. My statement can be rephrased in an equivalent statement "people who cannot be convinced to change are not smart", and I stand to it.
  • 42 Stimmen
    7 Beiträge
    71 Aufrufe
    B
    Yesterday on reddit I saw a photo a patient shot over the shoulder of his doctor of his computer monitor. It had ChadGPT full with diagnosis requests. https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/1keqstk/doctor_using_chatgpt_for_a_visit_due_to_knife_cut/
  • 32 Stimmen
    8 Beiträge
    79 Aufrufe
    J
    Apparently, it was required to be allowed in that state: Reading a bit more, during the sentencing phase in that state people making victim impact statements can choose their format for expression, and it's entirely allowed to make statements about what other people would say. So the judge didn't actually have grounds to deny it. No jury during that phase, so it's just the judge listening to free form requests in both directions. It's gross, but the rules very much allow the sister to make a statement about what she believes her brother would have wanted to say, in whatever format she wanted. From: https://sh.itjust.works/comment/18471175 influence the sentence From what I've seen, to be fair, judges' decisions have varied wildly regardless, sadly, and sentences should be more standardized. I wonder what it would've been otherwise.