top 95 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 90 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Also, that number is utter bullshit.

Netflix, like all major streaming platforms, has an incredibly optimised system for providing the media. A 4 mile drive emits ~1.6-2kg of CO2, whereas one hour of streaming from Netflix emits up to 100g per hour as per Netflix themselves (and even that study is being questioned now, with newer ones putting this value around 30-40g). Meaning you'd need to stream for well over two days to even get near the emissions of a 4 mile drive.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    2kg of CO2? Atomic weight of CO2 is about 44, of which carbon is 12, so 27% of CO2 is the carbon from the gasoline. I know that gasoline contains more than just hydrocarbon chains, and that the chains also contain hydrogen. But for the sake of this back of the envelope calculation I'll disregard both.

    27% of 2kg is 0.54kg, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline a liter of gasoline is 0.755kg. Aka 2kg of CO2 is the result of burning 0.72L of gasoline. Driving 4miles, or 6.44km on 0.72L is 9km/L, or 21.2mpg. 1.6kg of CO2 would be 0.57L and 11.3km/L or 26.6mpg.

    Maybe I shouldn't have disregarded the additives and the hydrogen, but unless they account for about 50% of the weight of the gasoline, then those 4 miles were driven in a something very uneconomic.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 109 points 10 months ago (17 children)
  • [–] 32 points 10 months ago (13 children)

    Yeah but she's the One Good Billionaire™️ for reasons nobody is able to articulate.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 10 months ago (8 children)

    I thought that was Gabe Newell

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    Gabe actually does good, though. Valve has been a major contributor to several open source products

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 10 months ago

    Taylor Swift also arguably contributes something of value--music that a lot of people really like. Doesn't mean either of them should be able to amass that much wealth. The tax system in the US is broken. In the US in 1961, for example, stock buybacks were illegal (so stocks paid dividends, which are taxable income), and any income above $32,000/year was taxed at 50%, up to a marginal tax rate of 91% for any income above $400,000/year. In contrast, the highest marginal tax rate in the US in 2024 was 37% for any income above $731,200/year, and companies buy back stocks rather than issuing dividends most of the time. Further, most millionaires and billionaires amass wealth through stocks rather than income, using loans against stocks for cash, meaning they pay almost no taxes and continue to amass personal wealth.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    I would hazard a guess that Gabe rarely leaves the house. He's probably more carbon-neutral than 90% of the self-congratulatory twats on this platform.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    That might have more to do with how bad the others are than whatever she does herself...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    Yep. She's not publicly eating babies and being carried on a palanquin by the poors. She ain't good, but her badness is orders of magnitude below some of the mustache twirling villains out here tying people to railroad tracks.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago

    She's so good (chorus: how good is she?), she's so good... that I don't even know why people think she is bad. (Also relevant is that I don't truly care enough to look it up?🤪)

    But in contrast, everyone knows about The Musk, and Bezos, and so on. Taylor Swift, on the other hand, is known to travel in a jet (which considering how she likely goes with a full retinue of 10-50 people each time, and how much she would be absolutely MOBBED even by her adoring fans if she tried to use more public transportation options, definitely is the safest and might even be a very efficient form of travel under those circumstances?).

    Not the same at all.

    Then there's the guy that was Luigi'd, not even a billionaire but with that mindset. So if one doesn't need to be a billionaire to act like one, then it stands to reason that one could theoretically become one without needing to act like the others. Maybe. Though whether that applies to her I have no idea. Perhaps she simply has a better PR team.

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

    This is just flat out bullshit. Flat out.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 46 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    The original tweet's claim is false.

    TLDR: It referenced an oral interview from a French think tank called The Shift Project. They have since acknowledged it as an error after a fact check from the International Energy Agency. BigThink originally tweeted this in 2019 along with a corresponding article. They have since issued a correction on the article and deleted the tweet. The IEA estimated that it would take around 45 hours of Netflix streaming to generate the carbon emissions of driving 4 miles.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 36 points 10 months ago (5 children)

    Stamets, it's cool, I know you're putting this out there to illustrate some obviously bad takes.

    Personally, I've kind of had it with these think-tank, astro-turfing, menaces to social media and society writ-large. I think it's high time that we all start getting a little louder about who's behind these things when we spot them here, and elsewhere. Lex (in the post) has the right take, but it's probably even better to get the word out about the source of this blame-shifting crap.

    https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/big-think/

    The Big Think is privately owned through Freethink Media. Some of the initial investors in the project were Peter Thiel from PayPal, Tom Scott of Nantucket Nectars, television producer Gary David Goldberg, lead investor and venture capitalist David Frankel, and former Harvard University President Lawrence Summers. Revenue is generated through advertising, sponsored content, and subscriptions to the website’s E-learning platform.

    If that isn't enough to get really fucking mad about this slow-creeping horseshit, I don't know what is.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    It's time to execute Peter Thiel

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    No, that was twenty years ago, but better late than never!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago

    Peter Thiel may be the Antichrist and he's just throwing around all this end-days mumbo jumbo to throw us off. The safe bet would be to execute Peter Thiel just to be safe. If we're wrong, it's not like we're any worse off.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 31 points 10 months ago (5 children)

    Nothing you do will ever come close to the devastation caused by commercial fishing industry.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    There are several industries that can make that claim

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 54 points 10 months ago

    Blue checkmarks fund Nazis

  • source
  • [–] 26 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    No it’s cool. Just cancel your Netflix and pirate your media. Thanks Big Think!

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 25 points 10 months ago

    Say people flying private jets everywhere.

  • source
  • [–] 24 points 10 months ago

    "Let's create a system that slowly destroys the planet but, and here me out, we blame it on the users of the system!"

  • source
  • [–] 40 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    Real talk, Big Think can cram this bullshit up their asses.

    I'm so sick and tired of having to humour these asinine Malthusian-rooted arguments against simply being alive in society, as if everyday people doing anything more than pulling air into their faces were an unwelcome imposition on the Earth - this, especially, given the scale of unchecked industrial/commercial pollution while industries continuously resist and derail efforts to regulate and sanction it.

    Granted, this kind of talk doesn't crop up every single day IRL, but it's starting to feel that way in online communities. Why the fuck are people allowing these hacks to make them feel guilty just for going about their lives, as though having a coffee or driving to see their family 500 miles away were equivalent to festooning themselves with skinned baby seals or crushing endangered leopard cubs underfoot? If global resources hadn't been so willfully, purposely mismanaged for 200+ years, we wouldn't be in this situation to begin with. Now media talking heads want me to feel guilty for watching TV? They can fuck themselves with BR40 light bulbs.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    I just want to commend your dedication to using flared bases, even when speaking about people you don't agree with.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 19 points 10 months ago* (1 child)

    That's bullhonkey of the highest fucking order!

    One hour of streaming video typically uses around 0.08 kWh, or 288000 Joules, while an electric car can drive a mile with more or less 0.346 kWh, or 1245600 joules, which is to say driving 4 miles is equivalent to 17.3 hours of Netflix!

    Source for streaming Cost: https://www.iea.org/commentaries/the-carbon-footprint-of-streaming-video-fact-checking-the-headlines

    Source for electric cars KWH per 100 Mile: https://ecocostsavings.com/electric-car-kwh-per-mile-list/

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 35 points 10 months ago (12 children)

    Not to say that netfix isn't horrible, but how much did Netflix save in CO2 buy gutting the movie theater and video rental industry? Surely it's better to stream than it is to drive to a physical location, pick up a crystalized block of oil, drive it home and shove it into our VCR.

    Hell, when they were doing disc delivery, it was coming through the mail who was already driving through the hood in most places.

    Hell, I wonder how much co2 it cost to make the DVD/VHS tapes in the first place.

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 32 points 10 months ago (11 children)

    Yeah this smacks of "but wind turbine blades aren't recyclable"! So? It's still better than what we were doing before.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 10 months ago (10 children)

    wind turbine blades aren’t recyclable

    I didn't even know about that.

    Wonder if they could crush them up and use them as concrete aggregate.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    "made mainly of carbon fiber, fiberglass, and balsa wood" from some random source. Doesn't sound like anything particularly toxic or difficult to source. I can't imagine putting them in landfill is a serious problem. So my response is "so what".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    Why not?

    Carbon fiber and fiberglass in concrete foundations would limit microplastics and add strength to the product. Throwing a never-decomposing product into a landfill is just taking up space for something that can decompose over a couple of hundred years. Reuse it at least once it there's a viable solution.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Sure. I mean, you could. Probably there are better sources, like construction waste, that you'd want to exhaust first, but I obviously haven't done a serious cost-benefit analysis, nor am I really qualified. My intuition is that you could do it but there are better uses of the time and money.

    Relatively inert stuff in a landfill doesn't seem like the highest-priority use of the time and money. The resources used to scrap and recycle a wind turbine blade could probably be much better used for more consequential purposes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago

    I don't like the idea of crushed fiberglass in landfills, but it's far down the list of awful things we do to the planet. I think you're correct in assuming the effort is better spent elsewhere.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (4 children)

    Nope, they put them in big graveyards

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    Need to figure out a reclamation process, but nobody's trying just yet.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (2 children)

    They're genuinely just not that recyclable. And that's fine, they're still really helpful

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    Remove encryption, let users download more files. Problem solved.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    Now try saying this about AI

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago

    The funny thing is, with AI each individual token is surprisingly efficient, but each query is burning 10s or 100s of tokens, and a single interaction can lead to 10s or 100s of queries. Factor in that there's forced AI integrations into things that don't need it on top of the millions of active users, the near constant training of new models, and suddenly its ballooned into an amount of energy that's noticable on a global scale

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

    Piracy is the green option

    Kill an oil exec and then binge watch your fav series!

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    Is that only if you stream it? What if I download it a d watch it locally? I know damn well my own computer doesn't use that much electricity, and the AIO cooler doesn't need to have the liquid replaced (or at least, not for a long, long time).

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    I'm not a very technical person, but is there really a difference in total power consumed for streaming data in real time vs. downloading it to watch locally later? Like in terms of data and electricity used end to end, I assume it would be the same. But again, I'm somewhat dumb

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 10 months ago*

    It is the same, assuming it's 1 machine to 1 machine. Streaming is still downloading the thing to your machine, just to a temporary space while you also watch the bits you've already received.

    But it generally isn't just 1 machine to 1 machine. Downloading from a torrent isn't 1 machine to 1 machine, either. That's actually kinda the whole point with bittorrent.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 10 months ago

    Ok, I'll binge watch videos on some other streaming platform instead. I'm helping!

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    This reminds me of that article someone shared here (I think) about your Spotify streaming's carbon footprint. It was a very odd article. I think it was likely factually correct, but it even said something like "streaming all year produces as much CO2 as (incredibly small task)". It seemed AI generated, like the dumped in data and told it the conclusion it should come to. Because I don't think anyone reasonable would've read it and thought that streaming music for a while year was in any way comparable to the other thing. Again, something minor, like driving a few miles. Something a huge amount of people do every day.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Even if it was a ridiculous amount, it makes no sense to blame the end users of the service instead of the service itself

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago

    Yup. I think it's fair to say someone driving a gas guzzler SUV needs to make a little more effort to help with global warming... get an EV or better yet, take transit.

    But with electrical stuff, there exists green power that's cheaper than the alternatives, it's the industry's fault for not making effort on that. I'm not the fucking power company.

    It's gotta be a shared responsibility on this instead of finger pointing. I'm taking transit and fighting tooth and nail against my employer's stupid RTO policies (while looking for a job elsewhere). I'm doing my part on the things I can control and I expect industry to do the same.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    Well ackshuallllyyyy they're not burning it if they're just wanking 🤓

    .../s

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago

    Probably thinking too much into it, but a lot of Instagram influencers out there are running a barely disguised escort service for the rich. One of the things they'll ask if they feel like you might want to hire them is if you want to fly them out. So, maybe burning jet fuel? Yeah, we're stretching things real bad here but we can make it fit rationally as well as figuratively.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago*

    I mean, if they’re wanking with maximum force, speed and twist without destroying the cylinder (or adding supports to the cylinder,) as well as adding ferrocerium or magnesium shavings to aid in the ignition process, and if the stroking motion produces enough joules of energy, hence heat, the crude oil could ignite, producing greenhouse emissions in their place of wankage. /s

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

    Using Shitter to post this probably does way more to negatively affect the environment more than anything.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    watching Netflix is a skill issue anyway. learn to use xdcc or i2p torrents or something

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

    Here’s a Big Think. I used to drive 4 miles to blockbuster then pick out a plastic coated VHS, then play it on my plastic coated VCR on my TV that was at least 10x the width of current TVs.

    Then, 3 days later, drive like a mad racer with no brakes to get back to the Blockbuster 2 minutes before they closed.

    And that’s just like the other 80% of America who don’t have trains, buses or decent bike lanes. So kindly FO on guilt tripping us for our streaming habits, TYVM.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 10 months ago

    Wise fucking words. Aside from boycotting certain businesses we have almost no ability to control the environmental side of things.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago

    How many Netflix shows of a single ride on a private jet?

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago

    lol good thinking, take away the one thing that keeps people sedated and watch the world burn

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago

    Mega yachts have to be started regularly to keep the engine running smoothly. So even if you aren't going anywhere, you still have to spend thousands in gas each few days just so it performs well when you do actually use it.

  • source
  • Save the planet by pirating instead :P

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago

    Aarrrr, that's why we do the work ourselves!

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago

    Remember, our governments are one way to implement collective action, but not the only way.

    You negotiate for higher wages. (Including by finding a higher paying job elsewhere.)
    Your union negotiates for higher wages.
    Your government should negotiate for higher wages.

    You do right for the environment.
    Your unions, friend groups, and community organizations do right for the environment.
    Your government should do right for the environment.

    When any level fails, it is time to build up the other levels.

    No, I have no idea how to organize a soccer game, let along a union or community organization.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›