Sorta like how corporations pushed recycling onto the public to deflect from their own culpability for pollution. Why would we regulate the companies building huge data centers when we can get average people to absorb the cost? It's not like they're making obscene profits while laying off untold thousands.

I mean, if that was the case, sure, let's have them pay to clean up the waste they generate. But have you seen NVIDIA, Microsoft, or Meta lately? These companies are barely staying in business. Their CEOs can hardly afford to ride the bus to work. Let's cut them a break.

TLDR: It's your fault the earth is dying because you horde emails.

all 26 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 67 points 1 year ago* (6 children)

triggering the server to delete your email is more energy than leaving it in storage (on a platter disk in some array in a raid)

the people who thought of that example are ignorant of how data centers work

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] [S] 16 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    the people who thought of that example are ignorant of how data centers work

    Almost all politicians are ignorant about tech, yet we let them regulate it. In the worst ways. And fail to regulate it where it ought to be regulated.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago*

    Competent Politicians are well aware that they're not experts on everything and hence hire domain experts to help them understand those domains and actually make informed decisions about them.

    Mind you, I suspect this specifically is more a side effect of the profound problems with Dishonesty and Cronyism that the UK has: basically they tackled drought as a negative perception of the Government problem, so set up a talk group to project the impression that the Government was doing something about it and chose as head of it (and to be well paid for it) somebody whose greatest qualification for it was being their mate, all of which is very typically in British power circles.

    The natural consequence of such things is them producing fancy press releases which look absolutelly moronic for domain experts, but since most of the people who read such releases are not domain experts, that's usually fine and in fact advances the true purpose of that "group" (managing perceptions).

    Even with the Tech Press internationally picking this up and making fun of it, since the very same people who play these power games over there also control the local Press, they might very well get away in Britain itself with a press release with even such a moronic idea as this, as it will be spinned to make them look good.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Also super long term archives are stored on magnetic tapes, they consume virtually 0 energy

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    tape storage is for offline storage, and any data storage on it would also be redundant

    writing and reading tape archives takes a lot of computing. usually you have your tape library server and a server hosting the app and then the tape sled. tape takes a lot of energy

    so deleting it electronically is going to take a more energy

    it's more efficient to overwrite it or use a degaussing device to wipe the tape

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Power off the AI farms that no one wants anyway (except the oligarchs of course)

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 37 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    OP hit the nail on the head. This is once again shifting the blame (and guilt) onto individuals who even collectively have fuck-all impact on the problem in question.

    The worst of it is, some people will believe this shit.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    What’s even more infuriating is the numbers of people who fail to recognize that all of these companies sell these goods and services to consumers and it is those consumers who can reduce the demand.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago

    In the case of AI, even if consumers actively try and avoid products with AI, it's difficult. There are studies showing customers are generally less likely to buy a product if it's described as having AI features, so the overall market demand is already for consumer products to have less AI. The demand companies are catering to is from investors, who don't need to care about whether it's viable to sell anything until after the bubble pops.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    It's virtually impossible to exist online these days without generative AI bullshit being shoved in your face with no means to opt-out. It's clearly not consumers driving this so-called "demand," because savvy people don't want this to begin with and never did. Rather, it's the desperate speculative hype around this dumb nonproduct that's causing big businesses to set electricity and money on fire with AI slop to no tangible benefit.

    A saner response from the UK government would be to tell these companies to either power their AI datacenters with renewables or get out, rather than trying to guilt trip individuals over, of all the goddamned stupid things, undeleted emails.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    There was/is a demand for slavery. Should we wait for these people to realize that maybe owning slaves is not okay and morally wrong? Or should we just outright ban slavery and not give two fucks how "the market forces" view such action? You tell me.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    That’s a false equivalence.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Your argument is, correct me if I'm wrong, that the demand for product X always necessetates its production/supply and that supply will cease when there is no more demand.

    A valid argument based on basic market economic principles.

    I argue that there are times, when the demand for something does not outweigh the cost incurred (by the society) from the production and supply of a product. Meaning there are cases, such as this one, when it is almost impossible to decrease demand and thus influence the production which in turn would decrease the cost incurred by the society. In my view, the State has to protect foremost its citizenry, not ginormous enterprises. If this protection means going against "market forces", then so be it.

    Both "products" cause harm to society while only a few benefit, so no, it was not a false equivalence.

    But then again, I could be mistaken and feel free to correct me on anything. :))

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    Oh, I was wondering how they were going to make this our fault.

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago

    I'll say it again, because I think the idea is a practical solution to the issue: electricity and water usage should be charged at reverse volume, the more you use, the more expensive it becomes.

    This would actually incentivise companies to reduce their usage, to question if they actually need that new AI data centre that will eat up all the gains in renewable electricity production and require fossil fuel plants to continue running, it'll reduce the crypto miners as well, and encourage everyone to try to reduce their usage.

    The knock on effect of this is that electricity actually becomes cheaper for everyone.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    The current crop of politicians (not just in the UK) is something else. They keep poking their nose at things that are not their concern and fail spectacularly at fixing things that are (health, housing, employment, education, infrastructures).

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    I think UK government has no idea what they're doing. First the stupid age verification which will eventually result in massive leak of private information, now this.

    If they wanted to save the environment they should push for mix of nuclear and renewable energy sources. But that requires effort...

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    More processing might result in more water use, but storage? It makes no actual sense. Having more stuff sitting in your storage isn’t making your computer hotter.

    In fact, I guess creating a guideline for servers to use more efficient processors would do much more for that.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    That's not the take-home here. We should regulate large companies, but as ever, individual choices both have direct effects on the environment, and indirect effects which influence the behaviour of a small number of more powerful organisations. Also important is that individual choices in the political realm influence what regulations get made, so we're never absolved of a responsibility to the environment.

    The take-home for me is that the government is using long-discredited statistics relating storage to water usage. Stored emails don't increase water usage by an appreciable percentage.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    ...because you horde emails.

    I've never large-group-of-peopled my emails but have been known to hoard them.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • 68 comments in c/technology@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 77 points 1 year ago (13 children)

    This is analogous to the "I'm using paper straws while the billionaires take a private jet each to Venice" situation.

    So I should delete old mails so that maybe (and actually no, it won't) there will be less drives to cool in the datacentre while the techbros have entire datacentres using hundreds of terawatts of power[1] and is predicted to be using billions of cubic metres of water per year by 2027[2].

    As usual, they're looking toward the people they can influence to make changes to their lifestyle, and ignoring the people actually doing the damage because they know they will not change.

    [1] https://www.iea.org/reports/electricity-2024: IEA annual report showing that AI and crypto is estimated to have consumed 465tw/h of energy in 2024. [2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/cindygordon/2024/02/25/ai-is-accelerating-the-loss-of-our-scarcest-natural-resource-water: Forbes report stating that AI datacentres are estimated to use around 6.6 billion cubic metres of water by the year 2027.

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

    Wait, you mean deleting a few MB out of the (max) 10s of GB won't make a dent in the TB/PB storage needs of companies who are actively sucking up data to process for their LLMs.

    Well color me fucking shocked

    E: lollabytes

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    I’m familiar with TB (tuberculoses and terabytes) but what is YB? Yeet-a-byte, since they want you to purge shit? I thought the next step up was petabyte?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Yottabyte, but that's waaaaaaay more than I meant lol. I completely forgot that petabyte, exabyte, and zettabyte are between TB and YB

    Fun fact, GPT disks can only go up to 9.6 ZB. So it would take over 100 maxed out GPT disks to get 1 yottabyte of storage.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Yottabyte is past tense for yeet-a-byte because you for sure should have cleaned up your storage before then.

    Pretty sure that’s true. But I didn’t know yottabyte was a thing (fr) so I could be wrong I guess.

    I don’t even begin to understand your fun fact, which made it more fun for me. 😊

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Going by the Forbes article's numbers on adult human water consumption, 6.6 billion m^3 would be pretty damn close to the entire human population's water needs. 2.6 litres per adult per day is 0.949 m^3 over a year, so multiplying that by a world population of 8.2 billion people (I know that's adults and children but I'm approximating for scale here) is 7.7 billion m^3 of fresh water

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -6 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    You alone are nothing, but everyone else like you adds up. Private airplanes of the billionaires in total to less fuel than commercial airplanes. Not that billionaires shouldn't reduce their consumption, but the "common man" even though insignificant alone still adds up to a lot.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago

    Private airplanes of the billionaires in total to less fuel than commercial airplanes.

    Ah yes, planes used by 1% of the population isn't equal to thr planes used by 99% of the population. What a great comparison!

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 71 points 1 year ago*

    The country is riddled with leaky mains pipes because water companies are more concerned with allocating huge bonuses to themselves than they are with fixing infrastructure.

    Now we're courting tech companies to build more data centres that our other shitty infrastructure (electric) isn't even fit to support because magic money tree go brrrrrrr

    This is mandated recycling 2.0. Fill supermarkets with products 99% of which come in plastic wrappers, only successfully recover a fraction of that, and then tell the consumer they're the ones destroying the environment.

    If they can fit my 5 recycling boxes up their rear, then they can shove this up their arse too.

  • source
  • [–] 64 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    I suggest spitting to lose weight

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Nice analogy. I used this one in the past: "you can't fix a full disk by deleting word documents", but I like yours more

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Always used to amaze me as a kid I had to pay 20p to inflate my bike tyre from, air.

    Boggled my mind since I had a hand pump.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    To be fair, those automated air pumps require upkeep (e.g. compressors fail after awhile and aren't always super cheap to replace when factoring the cost of the part and labor to fix). So that's what your money was paying for, not the air itself. But, I agree it is a bit ridiculous.

    As a side note, I highly recommend those portable air compressors that can plug into your car's aux port. Super convenient in the winter time when your tires' air pressure drops.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I'm not sure how is this applicable?

    If you have storage for documents, they will fill it up and you have to remove them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 120 points 1 year ago (17 children)

    A small data center has been estimated to use upwards of 25 million liters of water per year if it relies on old-school cooling methods that allow water to evaporate.

    So pass a law banning evaporative cooling systems from all industrial and commercial applications (or single out data centers), give them 6 months to comply and start handing out fines every day past the deadline.

  • source
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    straight up not feasible for many serious and necessary facilities like powerplants and refineries, unless you prefer very warm lake or river nearby (which also cools down by evaporation later)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 52 points 1 year ago* (5 children)

    straight up not feasible

    It's very feasible to create the law, collect the fine, and raise the price on energy sources or industrial process that require the cooling.

    It's a formality, you could do it in an afternoon. Costs a bit of ink and a piece of paper.

    "But then it gets more expensive!" and "This might push corporations out of the city/country." is the consequence the people / the government / the country have to have the balls to endure, if they want to stand by things like "having enough water" or "living on earth in the 22nd century".

    If the free market is something you believe in, you should love this, because it makes water a more scarce resource and the market will be able to find another optimal solution to that new scarcity problem.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -10 points 1 year ago* (4 children)

    Show me how do you want to dissipate 10GWt inland without evaporative cooling towers, i'll wait

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago

    summitsystems.co.uk/adiabatic-coolers-vs-cooling-towers/

    There are many solutions to this problem. Evaporative cooling is just the cheapest. But it's only cheap because we don't charge these water users market rates for water. If they're threatening drinking water or agricultural water we should just charge them for water usage the same as you pay for drinking water at home. That's fundamentally what they're taking when they drain the rivers dry. That way they compete directly on the water market instead of bypassing it.

    They'll install adiabatic coolers in no time.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago

    If evaporative cooling is the only solution then the market will adjust to the new cost by moving power generation towards the coasts or just increase the price, if there are other solutions they’ll become the economically more viable. Either way more water is conserved and you can always balance the cost benefit by adjusting the fine/tax to find a good balance.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    They could heat many houses or fill many heat reservoirs instead.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Depending on local climate, season and proximity to cities or industrial customers, this is often done, but you'll still have to dump lots of heat in the summer when space heating is off

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    cool. and watch the entire right wing go mad over “net zero wokery” and “stealth taxes choking our economy to death.” then watch reform win with a landslide and bulldoze the entire net zero agenda and see where we end up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    The right will always complain no matter what you do, so why bother listening to them and capitulating?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    sensibly managing the economy and balancing the need to achieve reduced emissions with the need to maintain a functional economy is not capitulating, and indeed being seen to carefully maintain that balance might be key to election victory in four years time.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    "If we try to make the world a better place, the conservatives will use that as a pretext to do what they're already doing"

    There was an onion article about almost exactly that lol. https://theonion.com/protesters-urged-not-to-give-trump-administration-pretext-for-what-it-already-doing/

    They're already saying our plan to tackle climate change is going to hurt the economy. But we know that doing nothing will hurt the economy worse. Being scared of them saying what they're already saying is weak and cowardly. Toughen up and do the right thing.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 53 points 1 year ago*

    I never heard so much bs in a single article. Those files and emails are stored on cold storage, and is using zero water. I guess it's a good thing to remove old files and empty your trash bin, both in real life as well as digital.

    But this article makes no sense at all. Just one query to an AI will use so much more energy and water in comparison with your old email in cold storage. It's a joke.

    Ps. By removing your files now, and checking the contents, you are actually moving the files from cold storage to hot. Meaning the server will load the data into memory etc. Which will actually makes this drought worse, not better.

  • source
  • [–] 42 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    How about deleting private ownership of utilities instead?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 29 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I tried deleting my files but I was age checked...

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago

    I hope the Department that released this guidance is being absolutely pilloried in UK media. What an absolutely worthless, dishonest pile of crap.

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    How is deleting locally-stored files on your home PC going to save water, when your hardware sips resources vs. any AI datacenter in existence?

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Most people save these thing in some sort of cloud storage solution.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    No, most people do not store their files in a cloud storage solution.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Cloud is just my own Nextcloud, hosted from my own garage. And trust me, it's using zero water.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    Authoritarian and incompetent.

    Just like all the other Fascists.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    I don't think I will. In fact, I think I'll download more.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Absolute farce of a country

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago*

    I'll also wear blue clothing to have the same impact

    Well, deleting stuff causes a load of processing that wouldn't have otherwise happened... So I guess I should have some coal barbecues?

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    So where does this water go after evaporating or leaking from your toilet? Is it flying into deep space and being lost for our planet forever?

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Raining over the ocean where it is no longer in the stores of freshwater these systems are pulling from

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    So this doesn't sound like a big deal after all. Maybe just stop pulling water from those "stores of freshwater" for cooling purposes and get your own from the ocean.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Corrosion issues, marine life clogging, too expensive, etcetc.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Yeah, let them figure it out. It's their problem after all. If it's more expensive, then let them increase prices for their "data serving" activities. If it's too expensive for some people, they might reconsider their usage of said services which in turn might be equivalent of "deleting old files or emails". Instead of asking people deleting files right now before those in charge even tried to fix the problems they created.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment