this post was submitted on 10 May 2026
849 points (98.6% liked)
Technology
84552 readers
4513 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yes but at that level of energy no unit is useful for the average person to comprehend. I somewhat understand the usage here. If it was in joules very few people would be able comprehend.
But then why pick 23, a number with two significant digits, to indicate scale? By this logic, 10 would be as effective at communication.
The 9 GW are already there if anyone needs a proper value, but without anything to compare it to, 9GW means nothing to most people. Hence the comparison.
9 is not the total energy. The article says the total thermal load is 16. 9 for the electrical usage and another 7-8 in the form of cooling. It also says that's the amount of 40,000 Walmart Supercenters...if you want another non standard American unit of measurement