https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/elon-musk-xai-gas...
https://www.iea.org/reports/solar-pv-global-supply-chains/ex...
Of course, renewables aren’t the only source of energy
I’m not sure what about that you’re upset with.
## In Comments
Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic"
I mean… this is part of GPs point. Here we are, playing on the lawn of private equitists, probably directly or indirectly working for the people that GGP was railing against.
In the end, incentives are all that matter. Do hotels care deeply about the environment, or are they interested in saving in energy and labor costs as your towel is cleaned? Does it matter? Does moralizing really get us anywhere if our ends are the same?
The only player doing the right thing here is probably Microsoft which is retrofitting an entire nuclear energy plant.
Everybody else is faking it to make you feel better. Elon just is skipping the faking it part.
If that means embracing fossil fuels, so be it. Destroy the “woke mind virus at any cost”. That being said, I think he is delusional enough that he thought allowing nazi propaganda on twitter would convince conservatives to start buying teslas and is completely lost at this point.
https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/co2?country=CHN~USA~IND...
I feel you'd need to adjust the sum total by something, capita, or square footage or be more specific like does a manufacturing X in China pollute more than an equivalent one in the US, etc.
I'm inclined to say the exact opposite about EVs. They take up as much space as internal combustion engine vehicles (in terms of streets, highways and parking lots), are just as fatal to pedestrians, make cities and neighborhoods less livable, cost in the tens of thousands of dollars, create traffic jams... the primary benefit is reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and generating less CO2. That's the number one differentiator. Faster acceleration, etc. is a nice-to-have.
for many, it's not even that. I like EVs primarily because I'm a tech-savvy person and like computers on wheels. but I'm also aware of their numerous downsides.
China is still about double the US, and the US is lower than Canada.
Not all goods and services involve the same process, some come with more pollution.
For example, Nvidia will contribute to a big chunk of US GDP, but it only designs the chips, which won't have the same pollution impact as the country in which they'll have it manufactured.
Not exactly your wording at that time, but my point still stands that the outcome was going to be the same because the imports were heavily skewed towards China. This has all been in motion before this current admin
(1) the utilization factor over the obsolescence-limited "useful" life of the hardware; (2) the short-term (sub-month) training job scheduling onto a physical cluster.
For (1) it's acceptable to, on average, not operate one month per year as long as that makes the electricity opex low enough.
For (2) yeah, large-scale pre-training jobs that spend millions of compute on what's overall "one single" job, those are often ok to wait a few days to a very few weeks as would be from just dropping HPC cluster system operation to standby power/deep sleep on the p10 worst days each year as far as renewable yield in the grid-capacity-limited surroundings of the datacenter goes. And if you can further run systems a little power-tuned rather than performance-tuned when power is less plentiful, to where you may average only 90% theoretical compute throughput during cluster operating hours (this is in addition to turning it off for about a month worth of time), you could reduce power production and storage capacity a good chunk further.
Environmentalists usually care about the environment for its own sake, but my concern is our own survival. Similarly, I don't intrinsically care about plastic in the ocean, but our history of harming ourselves with waste we think is harmless would justify applying the precautionary principle there too.
As far as Musk goes, it's hard to track what he actually believes versus what he has said to troll, kowtow to Trump or "own the libs", but he definitely believes in anthropogenic climate change and he has been consistent on that. He seems to sometimes doubt the predictions of how quick it will occur and, most of all, how quickly it will impact us.
I think there probably is a popular tendency to overstate the predictive value of certain forecasts by simply grouping all climate science together. In reality, the forecasts have tended to be extremely accurate for the first order high level effects (i.e. X added carbon leads to Y temperature increase), but downstream of that the picture becomes more mixed. Particularly poor have been predictions of tipping points, or anything that depends on how humans will be affected by, or react to, changes in the environment.