this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2023
1549 points (97.7% liked)

Technology

59323 readers
4805 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] nossaquesapao@lemmy.eco.br 46 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

I don't remember the name of the effect, but it seems to happen a lot of times when newer technologies makes things consume less. People end up consuming more, either by increase of size, duration of use of using more of the thing.

[–] raginghummus@lemmy.world 30 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yes! It's called Jevons paradox

[–] CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This isn't an example of that though, its just a result of deliberately terrible emissions regulation brought on by lobbying.

Yep, providing exemptions for vehicles under the weight threshold where a commercial driver's license is required is dumb.

[–] nossaquesapao@lemmy.eco.br 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Could you elaborate? Edit: I see, other people mentioned in the thread about the lobbies and efforts to mask emissions.

[–] Patches@sh.itjust.works 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I can confirm. In 2023 despite having LED lightbulbs - we consume 7 more watts per hour per lightbulb than the average lightbulb did in 1546.

[–] RagingRobot@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The lights back then probably weren't very bright were they?

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But they used very little electricity, almost none

[–] Gabu@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They also did jack shit for illumination, so...

[–] Hobo@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The average light bulbs in 1546 definitely did jack shit that's for sure.

[–] s_i_m_s@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah considering they didn't discover electricity until the 1700s then they didn't even invent one that lasted long enough to be practical until 1879.

[–] Hobo@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

That's the joke isn't it? Just for historical context Michaelangelo completed the Last Judgement on the Sistine chapel in 1541, so like 5 years before 1546, and I don't think he had flashlights to help him with the lighting.

[–] VirginMojito@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

led comes to mind here with this explanation. extremely more efficient then most other light sources. but because it is so efficient we see led being used everywhere. and almost never turned of because people say it barely uses any power. also the operating time is so high that companies purposely put components behind the led that break so they can sell more. (similar what they did to the old light bulb)

[–] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

also the operating time is so high that companies purposely put components behind the led that break so they can sell more.

Could you elaborate with more detail, or share some links for articles that describe that?

[–] Takumidesh@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Induced demand. If the option is there people will use it.