▲ 295 ▼ Nvidia and TSMC produce the first Blackwell wafer made in the U.S. — chips still need to be shipped back to Taiwan to complete the final product (www.tomshardware.com) submitted 1 year ago by BombOmOm@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world 52 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 120 points 1 year ago (31 children) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 31 child comments replies: [–] cupcakezealot@piefed.blahaj.zone 18 points 1 year ago (4 children) imagine how much easier it would be if the world weren't flat permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Statick@programming.dev 22 points 1 year ago (2 children) It would be so much easier if the world was inside out. Then we could just drop the pears to each country. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] naticus@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago Oh fuck, Drop Pears now too? permalink fedilink source parent [–] HakunaHafada@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 year ago* I needed this laugh today, thank you. permalink fedilink source parent [–] balance8873@lemmy.myserv.one 6 points 1 year ago That only helps if you forget Africa exists permalink fedilink source parent [–] Tetragrade@leminal.space 6 points 1 year ago Dumbass shipping route, just tunnel through. permalink fedilink source parent [–] victorz@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago (24 children) This is of course drawing lines on a projected globe, rather than straight lines on a round globe. But the reality is not much better—Argentina is almost exactly on the other side of the planet from Thailand. 🫣 Thailand's antipode is just off the coast of Peru, so very close to Argentina. Really, really irresponsible use of resources. Especially if these pears are shipped by sea. Then it's even worse. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 24 child comments replies: [–] BombOmOm@lemmy.world [S] 35 points 1 year ago (20 children) Especially if these pears are shipped by sea. Then it’s even worse. Shipping via sea is the cheapest and least greenhouse gas producing way to ship things. With the only exception being pipes, which are significantly better than ships on both fronts. However, we shouldn't be shipping peaches via pipe. ;p permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 20 child comments replies: [–] Nutteman@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago (4 children) We absolutely should so I can put the end of that pipe in my mouth permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] uninvitedguest@piefed.ca 15 points 1 year ago permalink fedilink source parent [–] Whostosay@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 year ago (2 children) You have died of dysentery. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Nutteman@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 child) Fucking rad permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Whostosay@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 year ago Also reminds me of this lmao permalink fedilink source parent [–] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 8 points 1 year ago (1 child) Transoceanic pipe cargo lines could be nice. Vacuuming cargo out, pushing in. Like trains, except with no life support concerns. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago Someone is dropping pennies in the vacuum tubes again! Now the whole thing is jammed and we've got cargo backed up all the way to Guam!! And yes Bob, we all know it was you! permalink fedilink source parent [–] victorz@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (10 children) Ah yeah, I failed to consider that, but it's at least an even longer route by sea. 😅 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (9 children) Longer than what? By plane? Not not but much... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (8 children) Than by anything. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (7 children) By sea is an extremely direct route, and by land isn't an option, so yeah, the only comparison left is by air. And shipping by air is less efficient in all respects except time. So saying this route is especially inefficient by sea is just a confusing statement. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (6 children) By sea is an extremely direct route Maybe if you ship it from the very South of Argentina (maybe they do?), otherwise it's a significant detour to go around South America whichever way you go. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago* (5 children) I just looked it up, it's a huge distance between Thailand and Argentina, about 17,000 km if you were flying. Going around the tip of South America adds an extra 1000 km, making the trip 6% longer. Meh. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (4 children) What are you saying? It's longer. That's my only point. Are you saying it's not longer... "enough"? What's the deal here, what are we doing? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (3 children) I mean, yes. It isn't longer enough to make sea travel anything but the most efficient method to ship something. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (2 children) That's not the point, the point is how long it is to ship fucking pears halfway around the globe, twice. Imagine the stuff you'd need to smear on those pears to keep them fresh, or how unripe they'd need to be when harvesting. I'm not talking about how efficient sea shipping is vs flying or driving. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) I'm not talking about how efficient sea shipping is vs flying or driving. Well I guess that was what made the original statement confusing, because that's definitely what it sounded like you were saying . I imagine this feels like a frustrating conversation (and I am sorry for that), but it's probably because of that lack of clarity. I mean you said traveling by sea was especially inefficient, mentioning the huge waste of resources. I think it's reasonable to interpret that the way I did. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago Alright, my bad. 👌 permalink fedilink source parent [–] Capricorn_Geriatric@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Shipping via sea is the cheapest and least greenhouse gas producing way to ship things. AFAIK all ships still run on fuel. Esecially the huge ones. While a lot of emmissions are "hidden" in the infrastructure, ships still have infrastructure: the ports and terminals weren't always there like the sea. Less infrastructures than other modes to be sure, but certainly not "free". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] balance8873@lemmy.myserv.one 5 points 1 year ago Well there's a clear thing you need to do now: go figure out the proportion of greenhouse gasses for a given shipped item caused by shipping. Someone has done the research, seems like you ought to find it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] grue@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (1 child) The fact that the result can apparently still manage to show up in a store cheaper than peaches grown and packed locally just goes to show how fucked up the economics in Argentina and Thailand are. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] FlyingCircus@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago The economy of the entire globe is designed to siphon money into the West. Third world nations largely aren’t responsible for the failures of their economies, it’s mostly because the West is doing imperialism. permalink fedilink source parent [–] shalafi@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago For whatever reason, this method was deemed cheaper. Resources cost money, and you can count on business not blowing money for giggles. You never know what weird shit goes on behind the scenes in a trade you're not familiar with. Hard to imagine a case for this one though! I fear there may be government fuckery like tariffs involved. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] cupcakezealot@piefed.blahaj.zone 18 points 1 year ago (4 children) imagine how much easier it would be if the world weren't flat permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Statick@programming.dev 22 points 1 year ago (2 children) It would be so much easier if the world was inside out. Then we could just drop the pears to each country. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] naticus@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago Oh fuck, Drop Pears now too? permalink fedilink source parent [–] HakunaHafada@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 year ago* I needed this laugh today, thank you. permalink fedilink source parent [–] balance8873@lemmy.myserv.one 6 points 1 year ago That only helps if you forget Africa exists permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Statick@programming.dev 22 points 1 year ago (2 children) It would be so much easier if the world was inside out. Then we could just drop the pears to each country. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] naticus@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago Oh fuck, Drop Pears now too? permalink fedilink source parent [–] HakunaHafada@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 year ago* I needed this laugh today, thank you. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] naticus@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago Oh fuck, Drop Pears now too? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] HakunaHafada@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 year ago* I needed this laugh today, thank you. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] balance8873@lemmy.myserv.one 6 points 1 year ago That only helps if you forget Africa exists permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Tetragrade@leminal.space 6 points 1 year ago Dumbass shipping route, just tunnel through. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] victorz@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago (24 children) This is of course drawing lines on a projected globe, rather than straight lines on a round globe. But the reality is not much better—Argentina is almost exactly on the other side of the planet from Thailand. 🫣 Thailand's antipode is just off the coast of Peru, so very close to Argentina. Really, really irresponsible use of resources. Especially if these pears are shipped by sea. Then it's even worse. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 24 child comments replies: [–] BombOmOm@lemmy.world [S] 35 points 1 year ago (20 children) Especially if these pears are shipped by sea. Then it’s even worse. Shipping via sea is the cheapest and least greenhouse gas producing way to ship things. With the only exception being pipes, which are significantly better than ships on both fronts. However, we shouldn't be shipping peaches via pipe. ;p permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 20 child comments replies: [–] Nutteman@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago (4 children) We absolutely should so I can put the end of that pipe in my mouth permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] uninvitedguest@piefed.ca 15 points 1 year ago permalink fedilink source parent [–] Whostosay@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 year ago (2 children) You have died of dysentery. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Nutteman@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 child) Fucking rad permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Whostosay@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 year ago Also reminds me of this lmao permalink fedilink source parent [–] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 8 points 1 year ago (1 child) Transoceanic pipe cargo lines could be nice. Vacuuming cargo out, pushing in. Like trains, except with no life support concerns. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago Someone is dropping pennies in the vacuum tubes again! Now the whole thing is jammed and we've got cargo backed up all the way to Guam!! And yes Bob, we all know it was you! permalink fedilink source parent [–] victorz@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (10 children) Ah yeah, I failed to consider that, but it's at least an even longer route by sea. 😅 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (9 children) Longer than what? By plane? Not not but much... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (8 children) Than by anything. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (7 children) By sea is an extremely direct route, and by land isn't an option, so yeah, the only comparison left is by air. And shipping by air is less efficient in all respects except time. So saying this route is especially inefficient by sea is just a confusing statement. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (6 children) By sea is an extremely direct route Maybe if you ship it from the very South of Argentina (maybe they do?), otherwise it's a significant detour to go around South America whichever way you go. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago* (5 children) I just looked it up, it's a huge distance between Thailand and Argentina, about 17,000 km if you were flying. Going around the tip of South America adds an extra 1000 km, making the trip 6% longer. Meh. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (4 children) What are you saying? It's longer. That's my only point. Are you saying it's not longer... "enough"? What's the deal here, what are we doing? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (3 children) I mean, yes. It isn't longer enough to make sea travel anything but the most efficient method to ship something. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (2 children) That's not the point, the point is how long it is to ship fucking pears halfway around the globe, twice. Imagine the stuff you'd need to smear on those pears to keep them fresh, or how unripe they'd need to be when harvesting. I'm not talking about how efficient sea shipping is vs flying or driving. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) I'm not talking about how efficient sea shipping is vs flying or driving. Well I guess that was what made the original statement confusing, because that's definitely what it sounded like you were saying . I imagine this feels like a frustrating conversation (and I am sorry for that), but it's probably because of that lack of clarity. I mean you said traveling by sea was especially inefficient, mentioning the huge waste of resources. I think it's reasonable to interpret that the way I did. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago Alright, my bad. 👌 permalink fedilink source parent [–] Capricorn_Geriatric@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Shipping via sea is the cheapest and least greenhouse gas producing way to ship things. AFAIK all ships still run on fuel. Esecially the huge ones. While a lot of emmissions are "hidden" in the infrastructure, ships still have infrastructure: the ports and terminals weren't always there like the sea. Less infrastructures than other modes to be sure, but certainly not "free". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] balance8873@lemmy.myserv.one 5 points 1 year ago Well there's a clear thing you need to do now: go figure out the proportion of greenhouse gasses for a given shipped item caused by shipping. Someone has done the research, seems like you ought to find it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] grue@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (1 child) The fact that the result can apparently still manage to show up in a store cheaper than peaches grown and packed locally just goes to show how fucked up the economics in Argentina and Thailand are. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] FlyingCircus@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago The economy of the entire globe is designed to siphon money into the West. Third world nations largely aren’t responsible for the failures of their economies, it’s mostly because the West is doing imperialism. permalink fedilink source parent [–] shalafi@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago For whatever reason, this method was deemed cheaper. Resources cost money, and you can count on business not blowing money for giggles. You never know what weird shit goes on behind the scenes in a trade you're not familiar with. Hard to imagine a case for this one though! I fear there may be government fuckery like tariffs involved. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] BombOmOm@lemmy.world [S] 35 points 1 year ago (20 children) Especially if these pears are shipped by sea. Then it’s even worse. Shipping via sea is the cheapest and least greenhouse gas producing way to ship things. With the only exception being pipes, which are significantly better than ships on both fronts. However, we shouldn't be shipping peaches via pipe. ;p permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 20 child comments replies: [–] Nutteman@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago (4 children) We absolutely should so I can put the end of that pipe in my mouth permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] uninvitedguest@piefed.ca 15 points 1 year ago permalink fedilink source parent [–] Whostosay@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 year ago (2 children) You have died of dysentery. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Nutteman@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 child) Fucking rad permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Whostosay@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 year ago Also reminds me of this lmao permalink fedilink source parent [–] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 8 points 1 year ago (1 child) Transoceanic pipe cargo lines could be nice. Vacuuming cargo out, pushing in. Like trains, except with no life support concerns. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago Someone is dropping pennies in the vacuum tubes again! Now the whole thing is jammed and we've got cargo backed up all the way to Guam!! And yes Bob, we all know it was you! permalink fedilink source parent [–] victorz@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (10 children) Ah yeah, I failed to consider that, but it's at least an even longer route by sea. 😅 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (9 children) Longer than what? By plane? Not not but much... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (8 children) Than by anything. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (7 children) By sea is an extremely direct route, and by land isn't an option, so yeah, the only comparison left is by air. And shipping by air is less efficient in all respects except time. So saying this route is especially inefficient by sea is just a confusing statement. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (6 children) By sea is an extremely direct route Maybe if you ship it from the very South of Argentina (maybe they do?), otherwise it's a significant detour to go around South America whichever way you go. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago* (5 children) I just looked it up, it's a huge distance between Thailand and Argentina, about 17,000 km if you were flying. Going around the tip of South America adds an extra 1000 km, making the trip 6% longer. Meh. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (4 children) What are you saying? It's longer. That's my only point. Are you saying it's not longer... "enough"? What's the deal here, what are we doing? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (3 children) I mean, yes. It isn't longer enough to make sea travel anything but the most efficient method to ship something. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (2 children) That's not the point, the point is how long it is to ship fucking pears halfway around the globe, twice. Imagine the stuff you'd need to smear on those pears to keep them fresh, or how unripe they'd need to be when harvesting. I'm not talking about how efficient sea shipping is vs flying or driving. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) I'm not talking about how efficient sea shipping is vs flying or driving. Well I guess that was what made the original statement confusing, because that's definitely what it sounded like you were saying . I imagine this feels like a frustrating conversation (and I am sorry for that), but it's probably because of that lack of clarity. I mean you said traveling by sea was especially inefficient, mentioning the huge waste of resources. I think it's reasonable to interpret that the way I did. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago Alright, my bad. 👌 permalink fedilink source parent [–] Capricorn_Geriatric@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Shipping via sea is the cheapest and least greenhouse gas producing way to ship things. AFAIK all ships still run on fuel. Esecially the huge ones. While a lot of emmissions are "hidden" in the infrastructure, ships still have infrastructure: the ports and terminals weren't always there like the sea. Less infrastructures than other modes to be sure, but certainly not "free". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] balance8873@lemmy.myserv.one 5 points 1 year ago Well there's a clear thing you need to do now: go figure out the proportion of greenhouse gasses for a given shipped item caused by shipping. Someone has done the research, seems like you ought to find it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Nutteman@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago (4 children) We absolutely should so I can put the end of that pipe in my mouth permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] uninvitedguest@piefed.ca 15 points 1 year ago permalink fedilink source parent [–] Whostosay@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 year ago (2 children) You have died of dysentery. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Nutteman@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 child) Fucking rad permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Whostosay@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 year ago Also reminds me of this lmao permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Whostosay@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 year ago (2 children) You have died of dysentery. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Nutteman@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 child) Fucking rad permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Whostosay@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 year ago Also reminds me of this lmao permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Nutteman@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 child) Fucking rad permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Whostosay@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 year ago Also reminds me of this lmao permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Whostosay@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 year ago Also reminds me of this lmao permalink fedilink source parent
[–] vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 8 points 1 year ago (1 child) Transoceanic pipe cargo lines could be nice. Vacuuming cargo out, pushing in. Like trains, except with no life support concerns. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago Someone is dropping pennies in the vacuum tubes again! Now the whole thing is jammed and we've got cargo backed up all the way to Guam!! And yes Bob, we all know it was you! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago Someone is dropping pennies in the vacuum tubes again! Now the whole thing is jammed and we've got cargo backed up all the way to Guam!! And yes Bob, we all know it was you! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] victorz@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (10 children) Ah yeah, I failed to consider that, but it's at least an even longer route by sea. 😅 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (9 children) Longer than what? By plane? Not not but much... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (8 children) Than by anything. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (7 children) By sea is an extremely direct route, and by land isn't an option, so yeah, the only comparison left is by air. And shipping by air is less efficient in all respects except time. So saying this route is especially inefficient by sea is just a confusing statement. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (6 children) By sea is an extremely direct route Maybe if you ship it from the very South of Argentina (maybe they do?), otherwise it's a significant detour to go around South America whichever way you go. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago* (5 children) I just looked it up, it's a huge distance between Thailand and Argentina, about 17,000 km if you were flying. Going around the tip of South America adds an extra 1000 km, making the trip 6% longer. Meh. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (4 children) What are you saying? It's longer. That's my only point. Are you saying it's not longer... "enough"? What's the deal here, what are we doing? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (3 children) I mean, yes. It isn't longer enough to make sea travel anything but the most efficient method to ship something. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (2 children) That's not the point, the point is how long it is to ship fucking pears halfway around the globe, twice. Imagine the stuff you'd need to smear on those pears to keep them fresh, or how unripe they'd need to be when harvesting. I'm not talking about how efficient sea shipping is vs flying or driving. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) I'm not talking about how efficient sea shipping is vs flying or driving. Well I guess that was what made the original statement confusing, because that's definitely what it sounded like you were saying . I imagine this feels like a frustrating conversation (and I am sorry for that), but it's probably because of that lack of clarity. I mean you said traveling by sea was especially inefficient, mentioning the huge waste of resources. I think it's reasonable to interpret that the way I did. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago Alright, my bad. 👌 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (9 children) Longer than what? By plane? Not not but much... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (8 children) Than by anything. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (7 children) By sea is an extremely direct route, and by land isn't an option, so yeah, the only comparison left is by air. And shipping by air is less efficient in all respects except time. So saying this route is especially inefficient by sea is just a confusing statement. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (6 children) By sea is an extremely direct route Maybe if you ship it from the very South of Argentina (maybe they do?), otherwise it's a significant detour to go around South America whichever way you go. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago* (5 children) I just looked it up, it's a huge distance between Thailand and Argentina, about 17,000 km if you were flying. Going around the tip of South America adds an extra 1000 km, making the trip 6% longer. Meh. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (4 children) What are you saying? It's longer. That's my only point. Are you saying it's not longer... "enough"? What's the deal here, what are we doing? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (3 children) I mean, yes. It isn't longer enough to make sea travel anything but the most efficient method to ship something. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (2 children) That's not the point, the point is how long it is to ship fucking pears halfway around the globe, twice. Imagine the stuff you'd need to smear on those pears to keep them fresh, or how unripe they'd need to be when harvesting. I'm not talking about how efficient sea shipping is vs flying or driving. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) I'm not talking about how efficient sea shipping is vs flying or driving. Well I guess that was what made the original statement confusing, because that's definitely what it sounded like you were saying . I imagine this feels like a frustrating conversation (and I am sorry for that), but it's probably because of that lack of clarity. I mean you said traveling by sea was especially inefficient, mentioning the huge waste of resources. I think it's reasonable to interpret that the way I did. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago Alright, my bad. 👌 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (8 children) Than by anything. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (7 children) By sea is an extremely direct route, and by land isn't an option, so yeah, the only comparison left is by air. And shipping by air is less efficient in all respects except time. So saying this route is especially inefficient by sea is just a confusing statement. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (6 children) By sea is an extremely direct route Maybe if you ship it from the very South of Argentina (maybe they do?), otherwise it's a significant detour to go around South America whichever way you go. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago* (5 children) I just looked it up, it's a huge distance between Thailand and Argentina, about 17,000 km if you were flying. Going around the tip of South America adds an extra 1000 km, making the trip 6% longer. Meh. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (4 children) What are you saying? It's longer. That's my only point. Are you saying it's not longer... "enough"? What's the deal here, what are we doing? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (3 children) I mean, yes. It isn't longer enough to make sea travel anything but the most efficient method to ship something. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (2 children) That's not the point, the point is how long it is to ship fucking pears halfway around the globe, twice. Imagine the stuff you'd need to smear on those pears to keep them fresh, or how unripe they'd need to be when harvesting. I'm not talking about how efficient sea shipping is vs flying or driving. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) I'm not talking about how efficient sea shipping is vs flying or driving. Well I guess that was what made the original statement confusing, because that's definitely what it sounded like you were saying . I imagine this feels like a frustrating conversation (and I am sorry for that), but it's probably because of that lack of clarity. I mean you said traveling by sea was especially inefficient, mentioning the huge waste of resources. I think it's reasonable to interpret that the way I did. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago Alright, my bad. 👌 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (7 children) By sea is an extremely direct route, and by land isn't an option, so yeah, the only comparison left is by air. And shipping by air is less efficient in all respects except time. So saying this route is especially inefficient by sea is just a confusing statement. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (6 children) By sea is an extremely direct route Maybe if you ship it from the very South of Argentina (maybe they do?), otherwise it's a significant detour to go around South America whichever way you go. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago* (5 children) I just looked it up, it's a huge distance between Thailand and Argentina, about 17,000 km if you were flying. Going around the tip of South America adds an extra 1000 km, making the trip 6% longer. Meh. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (4 children) What are you saying? It's longer. That's my only point. Are you saying it's not longer... "enough"? What's the deal here, what are we doing? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (3 children) I mean, yes. It isn't longer enough to make sea travel anything but the most efficient method to ship something. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (2 children) That's not the point, the point is how long it is to ship fucking pears halfway around the globe, twice. Imagine the stuff you'd need to smear on those pears to keep them fresh, or how unripe they'd need to be when harvesting. I'm not talking about how efficient sea shipping is vs flying or driving. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) I'm not talking about how efficient sea shipping is vs flying or driving. Well I guess that was what made the original statement confusing, because that's definitely what it sounded like you were saying . I imagine this feels like a frustrating conversation (and I am sorry for that), but it's probably because of that lack of clarity. I mean you said traveling by sea was especially inefficient, mentioning the huge waste of resources. I think it's reasonable to interpret that the way I did. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago Alright, my bad. 👌 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (6 children) By sea is an extremely direct route Maybe if you ship it from the very South of Argentina (maybe they do?), otherwise it's a significant detour to go around South America whichever way you go. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago* (5 children) I just looked it up, it's a huge distance between Thailand and Argentina, about 17,000 km if you were flying. Going around the tip of South America adds an extra 1000 km, making the trip 6% longer. Meh. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (4 children) What are you saying? It's longer. That's my only point. Are you saying it's not longer... "enough"? What's the deal here, what are we doing? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (3 children) I mean, yes. It isn't longer enough to make sea travel anything but the most efficient method to ship something. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (2 children) That's not the point, the point is how long it is to ship fucking pears halfway around the globe, twice. Imagine the stuff you'd need to smear on those pears to keep them fresh, or how unripe they'd need to be when harvesting. I'm not talking about how efficient sea shipping is vs flying or driving. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) I'm not talking about how efficient sea shipping is vs flying or driving. Well I guess that was what made the original statement confusing, because that's definitely what it sounded like you were saying . I imagine this feels like a frustrating conversation (and I am sorry for that), but it's probably because of that lack of clarity. I mean you said traveling by sea was especially inefficient, mentioning the huge waste of resources. I think it's reasonable to interpret that the way I did. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago Alright, my bad. 👌 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago* (5 children) I just looked it up, it's a huge distance between Thailand and Argentina, about 17,000 km if you were flying. Going around the tip of South America adds an extra 1000 km, making the trip 6% longer. Meh. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (4 children) What are you saying? It's longer. That's my only point. Are you saying it's not longer... "enough"? What's the deal here, what are we doing? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (3 children) I mean, yes. It isn't longer enough to make sea travel anything but the most efficient method to ship something. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (2 children) That's not the point, the point is how long it is to ship fucking pears halfway around the globe, twice. Imagine the stuff you'd need to smear on those pears to keep them fresh, or how unripe they'd need to be when harvesting. I'm not talking about how efficient sea shipping is vs flying or driving. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) I'm not talking about how efficient sea shipping is vs flying or driving. Well I guess that was what made the original statement confusing, because that's definitely what it sounded like you were saying . I imagine this feels like a frustrating conversation (and I am sorry for that), but it's probably because of that lack of clarity. I mean you said traveling by sea was especially inefficient, mentioning the huge waste of resources. I think it's reasonable to interpret that the way I did. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago Alright, my bad. 👌 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (4 children) What are you saying? It's longer. That's my only point. Are you saying it's not longer... "enough"? What's the deal here, what are we doing? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (3 children) I mean, yes. It isn't longer enough to make sea travel anything but the most efficient method to ship something. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (2 children) That's not the point, the point is how long it is to ship fucking pears halfway around the globe, twice. Imagine the stuff you'd need to smear on those pears to keep them fresh, or how unripe they'd need to be when harvesting. I'm not talking about how efficient sea shipping is vs flying or driving. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) I'm not talking about how efficient sea shipping is vs flying or driving. Well I guess that was what made the original statement confusing, because that's definitely what it sounded like you were saying . I imagine this feels like a frustrating conversation (and I am sorry for that), but it's probably because of that lack of clarity. I mean you said traveling by sea was especially inefficient, mentioning the huge waste of resources. I think it's reasonable to interpret that the way I did. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago Alright, my bad. 👌 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (3 children) I mean, yes. It isn't longer enough to make sea travel anything but the most efficient method to ship something. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (2 children) That's not the point, the point is how long it is to ship fucking pears halfway around the globe, twice. Imagine the stuff you'd need to smear on those pears to keep them fresh, or how unripe they'd need to be when harvesting. I'm not talking about how efficient sea shipping is vs flying or driving. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) I'm not talking about how efficient sea shipping is vs flying or driving. Well I guess that was what made the original statement confusing, because that's definitely what it sounded like you were saying . I imagine this feels like a frustrating conversation (and I am sorry for that), but it's probably because of that lack of clarity. I mean you said traveling by sea was especially inefficient, mentioning the huge waste of resources. I think it's reasonable to interpret that the way I did. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago Alright, my bad. 👌 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (2 children) That's not the point, the point is how long it is to ship fucking pears halfway around the globe, twice. Imagine the stuff you'd need to smear on those pears to keep them fresh, or how unripe they'd need to be when harvesting. I'm not talking about how efficient sea shipping is vs flying or driving. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) I'm not talking about how efficient sea shipping is vs flying or driving. Well I guess that was what made the original statement confusing, because that's definitely what it sounded like you were saying . I imagine this feels like a frustrating conversation (and I am sorry for that), but it's probably because of that lack of clarity. I mean you said traveling by sea was especially inefficient, mentioning the huge waste of resources. I think it's reasonable to interpret that the way I did. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago Alright, my bad. 👌 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) I'm not talking about how efficient sea shipping is vs flying or driving. Well I guess that was what made the original statement confusing, because that's definitely what it sounded like you were saying . I imagine this feels like a frustrating conversation (and I am sorry for that), but it's probably because of that lack of clarity. I mean you said traveling by sea was especially inefficient, mentioning the huge waste of resources. I think it's reasonable to interpret that the way I did. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] victorz@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago Alright, my bad. 👌 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Capricorn_Geriatric@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Shipping via sea is the cheapest and least greenhouse gas producing way to ship things. AFAIK all ships still run on fuel. Esecially the huge ones. While a lot of emmissions are "hidden" in the infrastructure, ships still have infrastructure: the ports and terminals weren't always there like the sea. Less infrastructures than other modes to be sure, but certainly not "free". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] balance8873@lemmy.myserv.one 5 points 1 year ago Well there's a clear thing you need to do now: go figure out the proportion of greenhouse gasses for a given shipped item caused by shipping. Someone has done the research, seems like you ought to find it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] balance8873@lemmy.myserv.one 5 points 1 year ago Well there's a clear thing you need to do now: go figure out the proportion of greenhouse gasses for a given shipped item caused by shipping. Someone has done the research, seems like you ought to find it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] grue@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (1 child) The fact that the result can apparently still manage to show up in a store cheaper than peaches grown and packed locally just goes to show how fucked up the economics in Argentina and Thailand are. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] FlyingCircus@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago The economy of the entire globe is designed to siphon money into the West. Third world nations largely aren’t responsible for the failures of their economies, it’s mostly because the West is doing imperialism. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] FlyingCircus@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago The economy of the entire globe is designed to siphon money into the West. Third world nations largely aren’t responsible for the failures of their economies, it’s mostly because the West is doing imperialism. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago For whatever reason, this method was deemed cheaper. Resources cost money, and you can count on business not blowing money for giggles. You never know what weird shit goes on behind the scenes in a trade you're not familiar with. Hard to imagine a case for this one though! I fear there may be government fuckery like tariffs involved. permalink fedilink source parent