Re: Pearls Before Swine: Rat The Luddite

On Tue, 06 Aug 2024 21:41:25 +1000, Mad Hamish
<newsunspammelaws@iinet.unspamme.net.au> wrote:

On Sun, 07 Jul 2024 09:00:35 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>

On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 12:58:24 +1200, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
wrote:
>

On 2024-07-06 21:53:05 +0000, Lynn McGuire said:

 
Pearls Before Swine: Rat The Luddite
    https://www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine/2024/07/06
 
You just gotta wonder how many people are like Rat.
 
Lynn

>
"It's supposed to last 100,000 hours" ... SUPPOSED being the important
word. Nobody actually knows because nobody has been able to test them
for that long.
>
LED bulbs are largely a scam for bulb makers to stuff more money into
their pockets. They are not really any "greener" than normal old bulbs
and they do not last anywhere near that predicted lifetime (especially
in houses around here with silly in-ceiling light fittings), unless of
course you rarely switch them on. The problem is that shops also
wanting to make themselves look greener and make more money have been
'phasing out' regular light bulbs forcing people to buy the more
expensive ones.   :-(

>
My actual experience with CFLs is that they do last longer -- a lot
longer -- than incandescents did in the same sockets. The last time I
bought light bulbs, they were LEDs at about $2/ea. So far, they appear
to also be lasting longer than incandescents did, but it is really too
soon to be sure and longevity compared to CFLs is unknown.
>
Which is, of course, the basic problem with these claims: they cannot
be verified. That the bulbs last longer and so don't have to be
replaced as often, OTOH, becomes apparent after a few months.
>
The high-level savings in electricity consumption would be impressive
if the power weren't being used for other things, like bitcoin mining.
Getting everyone to save electricity in their homes so someone else
can use it is /not/ conservation.

>
You think people wouldn't be bitcoin mining if you were using
incandescent bulbs?

AFAIK, there are already areas where they have been banned from
hooking up to the local power utility because there just isn't enough
power to supply them at the local rates (ie, without forcing everyone
else to pay more because nonlocal supplies cost more). They are the
poster child for excessive power usage, but IIRC the recent AI
programs and really large server farms also use a lot of power. And EV
charging, if not already a part of this, will be eventually.

And, yes, the connection between saving electricity with
non-incandescent bulbs (taking the claims for savings expressed here
at face value) and unplugging toasters and other unlikely ghost
appliances when not in use and the newer power-hungry applications
should be obvious. This is why we keep trying for fusion reactors.
This is why fossil fuels aren't going away any time soon.

I should point out that there is difference between /recognizing/ a
change and expressing an opinion about it. It is not that bitcoin
mining is evil; it is that claiming switching from incandescents is
saving power when it is really making power available for other uses
is deceptive.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"