65W TDP? Let's say we want to run a PC so we're switching to a newer low-end Ryzen with a 35W TDP and that that's a 30W difference for the whole system. Let's say we're running the system 24/7 and the CPU is pulling its full TDP constantly. Average US residential electricity price is $0.18/kWh.
In the UK, residential electricity tariffs are currently capped by the regulator at 27.69p per kWh, resulting in a total yearly cost of £72.77. Much higher than in the US, but still much cheaper than a new PC.
Yup. But from the OP, all the information we have is the CPU model, and the GP decided that was enough to say it should be thrown in the trash for power inefficiency, so I thought it was enough for some bad math.
(FWIW, searching for the CPU model brings up an old review where the full system they’re testing pulls 145W under some amount of load. While that’s not nothing, it’s also not outrageous for a desktop PC that does the desktop PC things you require of it.)
So $50/yr for 4 years gives you ~$150 with $50 extra for shipping or whatever, which gets you a decent Lenovo M700 Tiny with much better performance in both power and power consumption.
I guess. It's hardly an open-and-shut case of "throw your old computer away!" though, especially when this is a worst-case scenario of running a desktop computer at full blast 24/7 without it ever going into sleep mode or being turned off, and when you don't know what the user's needs are. Maybe a mini-PC with basically no expansion just won't really work for them?
Watts in TDP are not the same as watts in electricity, although they're both measures of energy.
TDP is a thermal measurement, it's how much heat energy your heatsink and fan need to be able to dissipate to keep the unit within operational temperatures. It does not directly correlate to the amount of electricity consumed in operation.
It’s not the tooling for me, macOS is just bad as a server OS for many reasons. Weird collisions with desktop security features, aggressive power saving that you have to fight against, root not being allowed to do root stuff, no sane package management, no OOB management, ultra slow OS updates, and generally but most importantly: the UNIX underbelly of macOS has clearly not been a priority for a long time and is rotting with weird inconsistent and undocumented behaviour all over the place.
Linux is not immune to BIOS/UEFI firmware attacks either. Secure Boot, TPM, and LUKS can work well together, but you still depend on proprietary firmware that you do not fully control. LogoFAIL is a good example of that risk, especially in an evil maid scenario involving temporary physical access. I think Apple has tighter control over this layer.
You completely misunderstood the quoted remark you responded to. The desktop security features in MacOS that interfere with unblessed binaries and libraries loading is a huge pain in the ass, especially for headless server use.
Yes, it was originally designed as a successor to HP PA-RISC and then brought to Intel. I don't know how much it changed from the original design during development at Intel.
> All signs point to you being a doomer that is excellent at moving the goal post.
All signs point to it being really easy for you to dismiss "doomers" as wrong and "scientists" as right retroactively. If someone was wrong about the direction of the climate crisis 20 years ago they were a doomer. If they were right they were a scientist. Easy!
You can apply this to anything that went to shit with the world in the past, not just the climate. If someone predicted the financial crisis of 2008, they were not a doomer, they were a particularly savvy financial analyst. All the others who keep predicting crises are wrong, until they're right, and then they're not a doomer, so your point always stands no matter what. Super convenient!
> If someone predicted the financial crisis of 2008, they were not a doomer, they were a particularly savvy financial analyst.
Zoom out buddy, the 2008 financial crisis is a blip. The world's financial system is almost exactly the same as it was pre-2008. Hardly the collapse that made the world stop spinning that doomers have a fetish for. That's not a good example to support your argument.
You fundamentally cannot grasp the concept of doomerism. Doomerism isn't simply observing some first order effect "The oceans will increase by 2 degrees".
Doomerism is observing that first order effect and trying to assert that we should change behavior at a societal level because they above everybody else, can predict what the secondary or tertiary+ effects are for society.
"The oceans will increase by 2 degrees, all marine life will perish, hurricanes will make vast swaths of the world uninhabitable. Therefore we should stop eating beef!"
And they are wrong about it every - single - time. Do you need examples?
Society has a long history of ignoring doomers, and the impact? Society is right and Doomers are consistently wrong.
Society keeps going. We have all of history up until the current moment, but from that we understand so far, Doomers have never been right about how disruptive their observations are for society at large. If you want to provide a contradiction to this statement please do so.
Nuclear power doomers -> completely wrong. Fukashima was the latest that proved this
Covid doomers -> wrong. in 50 years covid will be as forgotten as the spanish flu was.
Climate doomers -> wrong. famines are down across the globe and population still growing, still no clear example of the disruption to society or world in a way that is new. For any disruption we can find historical disruptions of the same category with more impact to humans and the world. Floods? More people killed in historical floods and more societies extinguished from them >100 years ago. Fires? More people killed in fires and more cities completely burned down from them >100 years ago.
Overpopulation doomers -> wrong, population still growing, but leveling off and not collapsing
AI doomers -> wrong on both sides so far. no bubble pop, capabilities still advancing, humans are also still relevant
Peak oil doomers -> completely wrong, more oil being discovered, didn't account for technology, didn't account for other forms of energy
With this kind of track record, you'd think that doomers would have enough self reflection to realize that their model of reality is insufficient at predicting outcomes and shut the fuck up, but nope - they just keep on trying to force a square peg into a round hole while annoying everybody around them who are trying to do something to move the needle towards a better life that doesn't involve becoming a vegetable so the earth can heal or whatever.
Compare this against another model of reality: Whatever challenges humans face, when it's dire enough, we will adapt and overcome.
You can backtest this model against all of human history. It would be dishonest to say that this model isn't more accurate so far than whatever model you're using as a doomer.
No need for doomers to virtue signal and lecture everybody about their shitty model of reality that fails to backtest
Doomerism is observing that first order effect and trying to assert that we should change behavior at a societal level
I don’t think this is as universal a definition of ”doomer” as you think. To pick up on one of your examples I’ve seen people being called ”AI doomers” for holding every position between ”all of these huge investments might not pay off” to ”it will exterminate mankind and make paperclips out of the universe”. Where is the line for Real Doomerism? Be careful when you draw it lest you end up on the wrong side of history.
I think your point about mankind’s adaptability is fair but you’re working with a definition of the word ”doomer” that makes it extremely easy for you to prove your point. ”Every time the end of the world has been predicted it has been wrong because we’re still living in a world” is true but not a particularly clever or interesting argument.
Also you need to chill with the ”YOU’RE using as a doomer” and ”YOU fundamentally cannot grasp” stuff. Lol, ”buddy”, you have literally no idea who’s on the other side of that screen of yours or what they can ”fundamentally grasp”.
Yep, I know about all that - I had big cupboard full of the damn things in my flat in london [various ataris (6502 and 68k based ones), dragon 32 (coco lookalike), peculiar IBM pc clones, and other stuff]
A few years ago I got my nephew to do up the flat for sale, and he junked the lot - at some point you have to get rid of things.
Yeah, I get it, I unfortunately live in the real world too. I like to keep it plain text whenever possible but it's extremely useful sometimes to have inline screenshots and stuff like that.
I didn't mean to be sarcastic but it's just that to me, philosophically, email is a plaintext technology that had HTML bolted on to it kicking and screaming, and it's always been kind of crap. People like me hate things that are fundamentally ugly and crap even if they are useful. The web was designed for HTML from the start.
Boo hoo. Claude was trained using data stolen from the collective works of all of humanity. If someone does it faster and cheaper by skimming the cream off the top of Claude then surely that’s just a market efficiency in the thieves business?
You’re going to brute force every possible state of a sandbox building game. See you on the other side of the heat death of the universe; hope you stocked up on Claude Code credits.
0.03 kW * 24 h * 365 d * $0.18 = $47.30/year
reply