Discussion in 'Business & Enterprise Computing' started by elvis, Jul 1, 2008.
Prompt and reliable service from these guys, 10/10 would ship a bag of dicks again
I'd love for it to be that epic story of how I shipped a kilo of dicks with my resignation, but sadly it was just to a friend at work on her last week. One of those you're dead to us we hope you fail things. By all accounts the dicks were delicious.
Stay classy, did you give her a pizza with a suprise in the middle...
Don't worry about businesses running from, and being reliant upon, Facebook. That is small fry compared to: Google decides which businesses live or die to a far greater degree.
Most MSP's make themselves more non-billable work than they will ever hope to solve.
Well color me unsurprised:
Google stadia @ 4K sucks down 1TB of data in 65 hours.
Lets not even assume aussie home data connections could support that continued level of data consumption for that period of time... But gaming for 8 hours a day over the weekend for 4 weeks is not to much i would think for a household...
15GB/hr, 4K netflix is 3.5GB/hr.
Not surprising. Netflix is 24/25/30FPS, gaming is at least 60. Netflix is media at rest that can be encoded with slow, but high quality codecs, versus gaming which need realtime/low-latency codecs which sacrifice saved disk space in order to keep quality high.
But, that's fine. There are millions of customers with connections good enough for this across the US and Asia. And technology will catch up at some point where it's more viable for the rest of us to join in. This is a "rising edge of the curve" kind of thing, so no surprises that our technologically retarded nation misses out for now.
I do wonder about the environmental impact of that though vs just running it at home. I get it's cheaper for most users but I'm not sold it's 'better'. The transport of data over the tubes isn't a zero emission thing, all I can think is a lesser pool of systems being built to service the same number households?
I once heard a completely unfounded statistic that a single Google query consumed the same amount of power as a single incandescent lightbulb running for 30 minutes, once all the collection, networking, processing, mapreduction and whatnot was calculated.
Potentially complete bullshit. But I certainly the amount of power and manufacturing that goes into 'puters is considerable.
With that said, *how* we generate power is now the bigger question. Given the processing arms race of planet Earth, just telling people to use computers (especially the ones in our pockets) less isn't going to cut the mustard. QandA had a guest appearance from the head honcho of the CSIRO who had a lot to say about the false economy of research into "cleaner coal", as well as clever ideas for hydrogen fuel transported as ammonia.
It's almost like these science boffins could have some good ideas. Nah fuck it, let's burn rocks.
Yeah that's a fair bit, if you can power the DC's with the boxes with more sustainable sources than what go to houses there is a better gain.
It's like it's nuanced or something, geez, how ever will we convey this in a snappy tweet
It probably was, the compute required for some of the Google stuff is a problem we won't ever have to experience. For example, their voice recognition side they used to have a 100GB dataset for it and in the last 1-2 years (through the use of AI.... yes luke212 it's real) it's now down to 0.5GB. The compute cost has had simular reductions.
The other great thing about Google is: https://sustainability.google/projects/announcement-100/
I did the calculations a while back and the average VM for most corporates / 5-6 rack type systems was under 5W/month (taking storage + switching etc into consideration and average server densities). You could easily halve that for Google / AWS were you're either using direct DC power and greater efficiency or other similar reductions when you're 100,000+ nodes.
Sad that scientists are now the "leftie nutjobs" and that politicians which are loud, corrupt and incompetent are the ones who get listened to.
I wish they would do more of it...
Websites should produce content that people want to look for
Google should index content, and provide search results for what people are looking for.
instead we have
websites produce content that google ranks highly
SEO is literally an industry that should not exist.
It shouldn't, I don't like it either. But Google does exist, and it is in the position of being the everyman's internet portal to everything. Single most influential commercial entity in the world? Not complaining. Just saying.
Agreed. It's a sad day when "regular people" buy into the idea that objective, research-based expert analysis is "loony left wing nonsense". It really shows how modern politics is closer to marketing than any other skill.
People who confuse (whether deliberately or accidentally) truth/facts with personal/political bias are basically everything that is wrong with everything. It's 2019 and we have near-instant access to basically all the information ever created, but facts are basically unimportant because people just believe whoever is shouting loudest. It's fucked. This is not the utopia that Jean-Luc Picard alluded to in First Contact. Young, naive BAK is aghast.
Yeah but Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek universe (Original not this multiverse bullshit) occured only after the human race nearly extinguished itself, so we are approaching the event horizon where humanitry will face the consequences of its collective stupidity. Perhaps we should look to other sources predicting a different future, we should be scared!
^^ this sounds more familiar.
Assume a 60 watt bulb.
0.060 kiloWatts for 0.5 hours = 0.03 kWH
0.03 kWH @ AU$0.26/kWH = $0.0078
So each search consumes roughly one quarter of one cent of electricity.
If we hand-wave hardware, network connectivity, and wetware costs away, what does one single page view of an ad cost via AdWords? I have no idea...
Daemon's post is on point though, more efficient hardware and software will alter that by the day/week over time. It's more of a trivial curiosity than anything that needs to be worried about, as elvis said, energy sources are more important than consumption at this point in a broad sense.