This seems like a waste of time to me when you could instead focus on Coal or things that matter

  • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    4 days ago

    The light that powers that sign likely uses more power than is going to be saved by people turning their screens off because of it

    • tetris11@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      4 days ago

      oh fuck off with that logic, a message needs a platform to be heard. Yelling at the top of your lungs about the axe-murderer isnt going to get you anywhere if you’re in his basement with the bodies. Get on his roof and yell

        • tetris11@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          4 days ago

          “But the trees used to cut that poster and the glue used to put it up, along with the lighting needed to make it visible at a distance would incur unforgiveable costs on this planet…”

          It IS a poster with a backlight that was already there.

          This isn’t BP throwing out a million dollar PR campaign to improve their image after polluting the ocean, this is a university putting out a PSA to drum interest about sustainable ways of using our digital devices.

          They printed a poster and rented an illuminated poster board that was already there to do so. It’s the same contradiction as using a diesel train to attend Friday for Future’s rally. Sometimes you have to just have to use the most practical medium to get your message out

          • rbesfe@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            4 days ago

            What exactly is this PSA telling people? The message seems to just be “screens use electricity, and we’re doing vague sustainability research around that”.

            I think this could have been a spam email and it would have achieved the same outcome. Not to mention that electricity is getting greener by the day, and personal device usage is such a small portion of electricity use it might as well be zero

            • tetris11@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              4 days ago

              Well I typed in the link to their page, and it’s… nothing. They’re literally not saying anything, just talking about some bs initatives with their corporate sponsors. Yes, fine, this is silly nonsense

      • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        one viral AI avatar or “Barbie Box” image can consume enough energy to fully charge an electric car several times.

        A Model 3 battery is 200,000-300,000 kiloJoules.

        Absolute worst case for an image, even taking very extreme estimates and amortizing out all the training, is like 30 kJ. Maybe 70 kJ for a slop video that takes under a minute to render, which is on the order of browsing Lemmy on a laptop for a bit. For reference, a local generation with FLUX dev on my 3090 is 2 kJ per image, and that’s relatively inefficient.

        I’m just saying, that is a bad comparison, as EVs take an absolute truckload of electricity to run.

      • yermaw@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 days ago

        I don’t think anybody turns their phones on thinking “I wonder what halfbaked AI generated video i can watch now?”