And it only appears to check the size of downloaded assets and then whether the hosting provider is known to use renewables. Indeed not terribly exhaustive or useful.
I reckon that Don being who he was and Frank being who he was there’d have been an incident at some point anyway. Jimmy Carl Black on the subject: youtu.be/rdZAx5YnwGE?si=E7YHJH-5psNxKyGe&t=1371
Mostly seems a bit silly but I think if people were making any sort of large decisions based on it, I would probably raise an eyebrow. But I like the idea of people considering the environmental impact of everything they do. Crypto Bros sure could’ve used that lesson.
It’s not like it’s doing any harm unless people put too much stock into it. Like the energy star rating on my HVAC unit - it’s just information to me. It’s not like I’m making major decisions based off of it or getting the feel goods. No reason this can’t be like that.
Exactly. It also gives you an annual estimate of the electric costs. I have no idea how accurate it is, but since they all use the same rating, I can at least compare on the fly if I am so inclined.
The monkey’s paw curls. New AAA games now feature thousands of individual rock models, among other labor- and space-saving measures being forgone in favor of realism. The game is 400 GB and the devs have worked 110 hours per week for the last 3 months
There was a game that came out a few years ago that scanned in most of its rocks for photorealism. I can’t recall the name. EA was the publisher, I think?
Tons of games do that now. Usually they get scans and models from other companies, like Quixel Mega scans. It makes for a relatively fast workflow. Pretty much any photo-real game is doing something like this, it’s just more affordable than paying people to digitally sculpt rocks by hand.
Setting aside that asset production is genuinely one of the most expensive parts of game dev, if they’re smart they can use some clever GPU instancing to improve performance by reusing assets
Imagine the fear and shock of test firing your guns into the water, speeding up and moving on, then suddenly your aircraft is shredded by a seemingly invisible force.
Plus, it ignores that most websites couldn’t reliably tell you how much carbon emissions they’d be responsible for individually. That’s a super-complicated question to answer.
A website managed by a person working from home are way greener than a website managed from an office, I hope they include that in their green certification
I mean you put it as a generic thing which means it’s independent of other details, including a “way” so you suggest it’s a significant difference clearly. This must be based on detailed data or research, right? Care to share that?
Because otherwise, I have a few questions:
Is the whole supply chain included? Developer, Ops, Admin, Data Center, cabling, everything? Or just the legally mentioned admin on the page, respectively the lawyer?
What if the page from home (and the whole home!) is running on hardware that gets electricity from fossil fuels + cooks with gas while the office and it’s page all run on renewables?
What if the page deployed from home is written extremely ineffective, so it uses multiple times more electricity?
What if the office in question is the back office of a pet shop? Or a supermarket? Or a DIY superstore? They’d heat the place either way, so why not also deploy the website from there?
And don’t get me wrong, I’m a staunch supporter of closing down offices as possible. But generalizations such as these help no one, and also just like the OP completely miss the point of talking about carbin emissions and climate impacts.
Yeah but that’s making the assumption that someone drives to the office.
And also immediately points the finger at car-based single-person traffic, not office-based work. And I want offices closed down as possible, so please keep the finger on them. 😛
So you have two identical websites, down to the cable materials, distance of workers and everything else. Basically a 1 to 1 clone. One website has one person not going to office to manage the site, the other website does not. Even if that person is only WFH one day a year compared to the other that is two trips not driven.
Many people here in Sweden that doesn’t live in a big city has quite some distance to work with no viable mass transit options (you are no longer allowed to ride on the school busses where I live which means that the closest bus station is 18 km from me) which requires a car.
Most of our electricity comes from water with other renewables constantly developing, so I don’t think the electricity source would matter much since it’s not server hosting.
Edit: my first post was also in jest while agreeing with it being super complicated with an almost infinite amount of hard to measure variables to boil down to a single digit or letter
Part of the issue is that electricity is fungible. If I consume one watt-hour from my grid, I don’t get to decide where it comes from. The mix of generation is the same for everyone on that grid. Even if you segregate the grids in order to vaguely guarantee that you are only consuming green sources, you’re also making the “dirty” grid cheaper and thus easier for everyone else to use, and there are plenty of ways of capitalizing on that difference that nullifies the segregation. It’s a bit like arbitrage.
slrpnk.net
Active