this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2024
47 points (98.0% liked)

Technology

35129 readers
107 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.


Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.


Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

but to minimise the cost

What about the cost to the environment? That cost is just a negative externality to them and you, apparently. Yet I'm the one accused of thinking "conservatively."

Burning ten times as many fossil fuels to "minimise the costs" is literally fucking stupid and short-sighted.

[โ€“] elvith@feddit.org 4 points 3 months ago

In the end it's about money. If one had to pay for environmentally damages (e.g. a new tax on $energyUnit, $resourceUnit,...) and you'd not only pay for the resources + some markup for the producing company and just external externalize the "worth" of the damages (read: the taxpayer,....), then it's cheaper to use these services instead of humans.