My bad. I didn't mean for this to sound like it was a topic of discussion. It was a summary of peer-reviewed literature on the topic.
Narrower roads rarely lead to more crashes and generally reduce speed and crashes, especially in urban areas with very few caveats (one being shared road with bicycles):
- mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/2/628
- journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3141/2023-08
- nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/Part-III-Section-1-Citation-2_-Hamidi-and-Ewing.pdf
Increasing the number of lanes unambiguously increase traffic:
- sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1361920901000098
- aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257%2Faer.101.6.2616
Reducing the number of lanes reduces crashes and keeps traffic at worst little more congested than before (i.e., overall reduced), just with fewer lanes:
- journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3141/1784-11?download=true
- pedbikeinfo.org/downloads/WhitePaper_RoadDiets_PBIC.pdf
Which part of the assumptions or methods used do you disagree with?
Posts
Michael Westergaard
@michael@westergaard.social
Studying to be part of the problem. Listener of Britney songs, toucher of computers, knower of psychology.
westergaard.social
Michael Westergaard
@michael@westergaard.social
Studying to be part of the problem. Listener of Britney songs, toucher of computers, knower of psychology.
westergaard.social
@michael@westergaard.social
·
1d ago
0
1
0
Michael Westergaard
@michael@westergaard.social
Studying to be part of the problem. Listener of Britney songs, toucher of computers, knower of psychology.
westergaard.social
Michael Westergaard
@michael@westergaard.social
Studying to be part of the problem. Listener of Britney songs, toucher of computers, knower of psychology.
westergaard.social
@michael@westergaard.social
·
3d ago
Reducing number of lanes reduces traffic, and making roads narrower increases security.
Reducing lanes makes going by car less attractive, increasing the number of people that seek alternatives (bike, public transport, or alternative routes), reducing overall traffic.
People get too comfortable with wide lanes, leading to less attentive drivers and more accidents. Narrower roads are much safer because they *feel* less safe.
Reducing lanes makes going by car less attractive, increasing the number of people that seek alternatives (bike, public transport, or alternative routes), reducing overall traffic.
People get too comfortable with wide lanes, leading to less attentive drivers and more accidents. Narrower roads are much safer because they *feel* less safe.
0
2
1
Michael Westergaard
@michael@westergaard.social
Studying to be part of the problem. Listener of Britney songs, toucher of computers, knower of psychology.
westergaard.social
Michael Westergaard
@michael@westergaard.social
Studying to be part of the problem. Listener of Britney songs, toucher of computers, knower of psychology.
westergaard.social
@michael@westergaard.social
·
6d ago
This is either outdated, wrong, or misleading. After the 1980s it should also include margarine.
0
0
0
Michael Westergaard
@michael@westergaard.social
Studying to be part of the problem. Listener of Britney songs, toucher of computers, knower of psychology.
westergaard.social
Michael Westergaard
@michael@westergaard.social
Studying to be part of the problem. Listener of Britney songs, toucher of computers, knower of psychology.
westergaard.social
@michael@westergaard.social
·
Apr 15, 2026
You cannot publish it like that. That would be highly irresponsible.
Name it Naked Teams Roulette, then publish.
Name it Naked Teams Roulette, then publish.
0
0
0
Michael Westergaard
@michael@westergaard.social
Studying to be part of the problem. Listener of Britney songs, toucher of computers, knower of psychology.
westergaard.social
Michael Westergaard
@michael@westergaard.social
Studying to be part of the problem. Listener of Britney songs, toucher of computers, knower of psychology.
westergaard.social
@michael@westergaard.social
·
Apr 13, 2026
Exchange is not the issue (for that). The issue is they are very strict and it's very hard to not get on their shitlist.
In addition to SPF, DKIM, and DMARC, which are all mandatory these days, you need to make sure that your IP is not on a blacklist (and most cheap cloud providers that allow port 25 traffic are), and that your domain isn't (if you sent mails with invalid DMARC/SPF/DKIM or you don't have DMARC in a strict mode and somebody used your domain to send spam, it is on a blacklist).
They often employ graylisting (deny mails the first time around, only accepting on re-send) and nebulous anti-spam rules (proprietary SpamAssassin-like checks – nebulous to prevent spammers from working around them).
It's hard, very hard, to run a working mail server. It makes the 90s/00s with sendmail config woes seem nice in comparison. You cannot just boot up a Postfix and expect to be able to send mail.
For the most part, this is fair. Each of the rules is there to prevent spam and makes sense. The unfortunate fact is that it simultaneously makes it very hard for self-hosters/small companies to send legitimate mail. Because their mail looks exactly like spam.
I had a domain blacklisted at Google due to slightly wrong DMARC + DKIM setting; took a good 2 weeks to get it removed despite all checks saying it was fine.
mxtoolbox is only the beginning (it found no issue with my blacklisted domain); mail-tester is better, being on Google Postmaster is a must, and a DMARC monitor is close to a necessity.
BIMI often helps because it's so extremely expensive.
In addition to SPF, DKIM, and DMARC, which are all mandatory these days, you need to make sure that your IP is not on a blacklist (and most cheap cloud providers that allow port 25 traffic are), and that your domain isn't (if you sent mails with invalid DMARC/SPF/DKIM or you don't have DMARC in a strict mode and somebody used your domain to send spam, it is on a blacklist).
They often employ graylisting (deny mails the first time around, only accepting on re-send) and nebulous anti-spam rules (proprietary SpamAssassin-like checks – nebulous to prevent spammers from working around them).
It's hard, very hard, to run a working mail server. It makes the 90s/00s with sendmail config woes seem nice in comparison. You cannot just boot up a Postfix and expect to be able to send mail.
For the most part, this is fair. Each of the rules is there to prevent spam and makes sense. The unfortunate fact is that it simultaneously makes it very hard for self-hosters/small companies to send legitimate mail. Because their mail looks exactly like spam.
I had a domain blacklisted at Google due to slightly wrong DMARC + DKIM setting; took a good 2 weeks to get it removed despite all checks saying it was fine.
mxtoolbox is only the beginning (it found no issue with my blacklisted domain); mail-tester is better, being on Google Postmaster is a must, and a DMARC monitor is close to a necessity.
BIMI often helps because it's so extremely expensive.
0
2
2
Michael Westergaard
@michael@westergaard.social
Studying to be part of the problem. Listener of Britney songs, toucher of computers, knower of psychology.
westergaard.social
Michael Westergaard
@michael@westergaard.social
Studying to be part of the problem. Listener of Britney songs, toucher of computers, knower of psychology.
westergaard.social
@michael@westergaard.social
·
Apr 12, 2026
But inflation is sky-rocketing, so maybe they are just staying at the same level
0
0
0
Michael Westergaard
@michael@westergaard.social
Studying to be part of the problem. Listener of Britney songs, toucher of computers, knower of psychology.
westergaard.social
Michael Westergaard
@michael@westergaard.social
Studying to be part of the problem. Listener of Britney songs, toucher of computers, knower of psychology.
westergaard.social
@michael@westergaard.social
·
Apr 12, 2026
I know I remember 6 * 8 = 48 as "both end in 8." That rule doesn't work for 8 * 6, making that a harder operation.
0
0
0
Michael Westergaard
@michael@westergaard.social
Studying to be part of the problem. Listener of Britney songs, toucher of computers, knower of psychology.
westergaard.social
Michael Westergaard
@michael@westergaard.social
Studying to be part of the problem. Listener of Britney songs, toucher of computers, knower of psychology.
westergaard.social
@michael@westergaard.social
·
Apr 12, 2026
Multiplication of small numbers is pure memorization. So this tells us they learn one ordering more than the other.
0
2
0
Michael Westergaard
@michael@westergaard.social
Studying to be part of the problem. Listener of Britney songs, toucher of computers, knower of psychology.
westergaard.social
Michael Westergaard
@michael@westergaard.social
Studying to be part of the problem. Listener of Britney songs, toucher of computers, knower of psychology.
westergaard.social
@michael@westergaard.social
·
Apr 12, 2026
The best part is it’s not 100% symmetrical along the diagonal
0
2
0
Michael Westergaard
@michael@westergaard.social
Studying to be part of the problem. Listener of Britney songs, toucher of computers, knower of psychology.
westergaard.social
Michael Westergaard
@michael@westergaard.social
Studying to be part of the problem. Listener of Britney songs, toucher of computers, knower of psychology.
westergaard.social
@michael@westergaard.social
·
Apr 09, 2026
Italian, Chinese, and Japanese cuisines may be more popular, but the more interesting finding in that figure is that the three are also the more picky eaters (they are all almost at the far right columns).
0
0
0
Michael Westergaard
@michael@westergaard.social
Studying to be part of the problem. Listener of Britney songs, toucher of computers, knower of psychology.
westergaard.social
Michael Westergaard
@michael@westergaard.social
Studying to be part of the problem. Listener of Britney songs, toucher of computers, knower of psychology.
westergaard.social
@michael@westergaard.social
·
Apr 06, 2026
Trump didn’t bomb it. The US did. They voted for him in 2024 and continue supporting him sufficiently that he hasn’t been stopped. They are all responsible - don’t let them off the hook by putting the blame on a single person.
0
0
0
Michael Westergaard
@michael@westergaard.social
Studying to be part of the problem. Listener of Britney songs, toucher of computers, knower of psychology.
westergaard.social
Michael Westergaard
@michael@westergaard.social
Studying to be part of the problem. Listener of Britney songs, toucher of computers, knower of psychology.
westergaard.social
@michael@westergaard.social
·
Apr 04, 2026
She should hook up with El Salvador president Nayib Bukkake.
1
0
0
Michael Westergaard
@michael@westergaard.social
Studying to be part of the problem. Listener of Britney songs, toucher of computers, knower of psychology.
westergaard.social
Michael Westergaard
@michael@westergaard.social
Studying to be part of the problem. Listener of Britney songs, toucher of computers, knower of psychology.
westergaard.social
@michael@westergaard.social
·
Apr 03, 2026
Microsoft of the 1990s says hi
1
0
0
Michael Westergaard
@michael@westergaard.social
Studying to be part of the problem. Listener of Britney songs, toucher of computers, knower of psychology.
westergaard.social
Michael Westergaard
@michael@westergaard.social
Studying to be part of the problem. Listener of Britney songs, toucher of computers, knower of psychology.
westergaard.social
@michael@westergaard.social
·
Apr 01, 2026
In all fairness, empty inbox > another slop generator
0
0
0
Michael Westergaard
@michael@westergaard.social
Studying to be part of the problem. Listener of Britney songs, toucher of computers, knower of psychology.
westergaard.social
Michael Westergaard
@michael@westergaard.social
Studying to be part of the problem. Listener of Britney songs, toucher of computers, knower of psychology.
westergaard.social
@michael@westergaard.social
·
Mar 22, 2026
What does it do that Friendica or Hubzilla don’t? Seems to me the effort might be better spent on one of the existing projects with very similar goals instead of reinventing them.
0
1
0
Michael Westergaard
@michael@westergaard.social
Studying to be part of the problem. Listener of Britney songs, toucher of computers, knower of psychology.
westergaard.social
Michael Westergaard
@michael@westergaard.social
Studying to be part of the problem. Listener of Britney songs, toucher of computers, knower of psychology.
westergaard.social
@michael@westergaard.social
·
Mar 18, 2026
The main goal of donations may be to get a particular candidate elected, but a close runner-up is being owed favors by whoever wins afterwards.
0
0
1
Michael Westergaard
@michael@westergaard.social
Studying to be part of the problem. Listener of Britney songs, toucher of computers, knower of psychology.
westergaard.social
Michael Westergaard
@michael@westergaard.social
Studying to be part of the problem. Listener of Britney songs, toucher of computers, knower of psychology.
westergaard.social
@michael@westergaard.social
·
Mar 07, 2026
I'm pretty sure, I did not at any point call people using LLMs to create programs developers or programmers.
0
0
0
Michael Westergaard
@michael@westergaard.social
Studying to be part of the problem. Listener of Britney songs, toucher of computers, knower of psychology.
westergaard.social
Michael Westergaard
@michael@westergaard.social
Studying to be part of the problem. Listener of Britney songs, toucher of computers, knower of psychology.
westergaard.social
@michael@westergaard.social
·
Mar 06, 2026
That's a completely different discussion. I agree to some extent with this.
0
1
0
Michael Westergaard
@michael@westergaard.social
Studying to be part of the problem. Listener of Britney songs, toucher of computers, knower of psychology.
westergaard.social
Michael Westergaard
@michael@westergaard.social
Studying to be part of the problem. Listener of Britney songs, toucher of computers, knower of psychology.
westergaard.social
@michael@westergaard.social
·
Mar 06, 2026
I didn't mean the code being legitimate or not, but that making programs using an LLM can be a legitimate way of making programs.
Using an LLM definitely doesn't teach you programming. But it does increase your skill in making programs using LLMs. They are different skills that accomplish something similar.
Using a high-level language allows you to write programs without having to worry about register allocations, call conventions, or memory models. Many modern developers don't even know what a register is, what a call convention is, or the difference between a stack and a heap. But that is ok: the compiler takes care of that, and you're just delegating to it to take care of the details that don't matter at your level.
For non-developers, the LLM can serve some of the same roles. It can write the code they don't understand and they can create by describing it, just as your or I create programs by describing it in our programming language of choice. It's fair if you don't see describing the program to an LLM as creating, but I see it as creating just on another level. And I hate using LLMs for coding or when try pushing me to using it.
The comparison with a compiler is a little flawed. It should be a comparison between compilers in the 1960s: back then, compilers were pretty garbage and frequently made mistakes. The fact that compilers eventually became great and better than humans should not be taken as an argument that the same will happen for LLMs. But either does allow making programs at a higher abstraction level.
Using an LLM definitely doesn't teach you programming. But it does increase your skill in making programs using LLMs. They are different skills that accomplish something similar.
Using a high-level language allows you to write programs without having to worry about register allocations, call conventions, or memory models. Many modern developers don't even know what a register is, what a call convention is, or the difference between a stack and a heap. But that is ok: the compiler takes care of that, and you're just delegating to it to take care of the details that don't matter at your level.
For non-developers, the LLM can serve some of the same roles. It can write the code they don't understand and they can create by describing it, just as your or I create programs by describing it in our programming language of choice. It's fair if you don't see describing the program to an LLM as creating, but I see it as creating just on another level. And I hate using LLMs for coding or when try pushing me to using it.
The comparison with a compiler is a little flawed. It should be a comparison between compilers in the 1960s: back then, compilers were pretty garbage and frequently made mistakes. The fact that compilers eventually became great and better than humans should not be taken as an argument that the same will happen for LLMs. But either does allow making programs at a higher abstraction level.
0
0
0
Michael Westergaard
@michael@westergaard.social
Studying to be part of the problem. Listener of Britney songs, toucher of computers, knower of psychology.
westergaard.social
Michael Westergaard
@michael@westergaard.social
Studying to be part of the problem. Listener of Britney songs, toucher of computers, knower of psychology.
westergaard.social
@michael@westergaard.social
·
Mar 06, 2026
It absolutely does. It does not allow you to create the same way a developer does, but it allows creating anyway. Coding is a small part of software development: design and analysis is a much larger part for most projects, and while LLMs can be used to spar about that (to some more or less meaningful extent), you still need to do that.
Saying code made using an LLM isn't legitimate is just as meaningful as saying that code made using a high-level language is less legitimate than code made in assembler.
Saying code made using an LLM isn't legitimate is just as meaningful as saying that code made using a high-level language is less legitimate than code made in assembler.
0
6
0
Michael Westergaard
@michael@westergaard.social
Studying to be part of the problem. Listener of Britney songs, toucher of computers, knower of psychology.
westergaard.social
Michael Westergaard
@michael@westergaard.social
Studying to be part of the problem. Listener of Britney songs, toucher of computers, knower of psychology.
westergaard.social
@michael@westergaard.social
·
Mar 06, 2026
I know a non-trivial amount of people who cannot code, but who use AI to make programs. They get excited from being able to create. And I find that great.
Their annoying mistake is that since AI enabled them to go from being unable to being able to make programs, it will make a developer who already can code better at making programs.
It's like offering a wheelchair to somebody that walks: just because it allows somebody with broken legs to move, it does not make the walking better at walking. But it has a place in aiding those that cannot move without it.
Their annoying mistake is that since AI enabled them to go from being unable to being able to make programs, it will make a developer who already can code better at making programs.
It's like offering a wheelchair to somebody that walks: just because it allows somebody with broken legs to move, it does not make the walking better at walking. But it has a place in aiding those that cannot move without it.
0
6
2
Michael Westergaard
@michael@westergaard.social
Studying to be part of the problem. Listener of Britney songs, toucher of computers, knower of psychology.
westergaard.social
Michael Westergaard
@michael@westergaard.social
Studying to be part of the problem. Listener of Britney songs, toucher of computers, knower of psychology.
westergaard.social
@michael@westergaard.social
·
Feb 27, 2026
En anden potentiel svaghed er at regeringen ofte stemmer sammen som del af et kompromis, hvor de ikke nødvendigvis er enige om alt (fx fik S og V samme score for mig)
Vældig god pointe at få folk til at læse forslagene. Det gør det det værd i sig selv, IMO
Vældig god pointe at få folk til at læse forslagene. Det gør det det værd i sig selv, IMO
1
1
0
Michael Westergaard
@michael@westergaard.social
Studying to be part of the problem. Listener of Britney songs, toucher of computers, knower of psychology.
westergaard.social
Michael Westergaard
@michael@westergaard.social
Studying to be part of the problem. Listener of Britney songs, toucher of computers, knower of psychology.
westergaard.social
@michael@westergaard.social
·
Feb 27, 2026
God ide. Som andre også nævner, er navnene ikke super sigende. Det er måske en ide altid at vise detaljerne så man ikke behøver klikke en ekstra gang - de er ret korte og næsten altid nødvendige.
Et problem med at bruge lovansvar og beskrivelser direkte er at de kan være misvisende. Er en lov om markedsføring virkelig om konkurrence eller for at tillade fx prediction market reklamer? Har en lov om landbrug et urelateret afsnit om burkaer… Det er åbenlyst ikke let at omskrive neutralt, så det er mere en observation end et forslag.
Et problem med at bruge lovansvar og beskrivelser direkte er at de kan være misvisende. Er en lov om markedsføring virkelig om konkurrence eller for at tillade fx prediction market reklamer? Har en lov om landbrug et urelateret afsnit om burkaer… Det er åbenlyst ikke let at omskrive neutralt, så det er mere en observation end et forslag.
1
3
0
Michael Westergaard
@michael@westergaard.social
Studying to be part of the problem. Listener of Britney songs, toucher of computers, knower of psychology.
westergaard.social
Michael Westergaard
@michael@westergaard.social
Studying to be part of the problem. Listener of Britney songs, toucher of computers, knower of psychology.
westergaard.social
@michael@westergaard.social
·
Feb 26, 2026
I like to say that LLMS are a great way to reduce junior development time at the cost of senior review time.
1
0
0
Michael Westergaard
@michael@westergaard.social
Studying to be part of the problem. Listener of Britney songs, toucher of computers, knower of psychology.
westergaard.social
Michael Westergaard
@michael@westergaard.social
Studying to be part of the problem. Listener of Britney songs, toucher of computers, knower of psychology.
westergaard.social
@michael@westergaard.social
·
Feb 13, 2026
still gives them engagement
0
0
0
Michael Westergaard
@michael@westergaard.social
Studying to be part of the problem. Listener of Britney songs, toucher of computers, knower of psychology.
westergaard.social
Michael Westergaard
@michael@westergaard.social
Studying to be part of the problem. Listener of Britney songs, toucher of computers, knower of psychology.
westergaard.social
@michael@westergaard.social
·
Nov 21, 2025
It’s literally Clippy 2.0.
Microsoft did usability tests of Clippy in the 90s. People responded positively, so they dialed the frequency/invasiveness to 11 leading to it becoming universally hated and eventually removed.
AI features can have some merit in some cases, we just don’t want it showed down our throats everywhere. It could succeed if they weren’t so pushy, but that’s not worth trillions in stock valuation.
Microsoft did usability tests of Clippy in the 90s. People responded positively, so they dialed the frequency/invasiveness to 11 leading to it becoming universally hated and eventually removed.
AI features can have some merit in some cases, we just don’t want it showed down our throats everywhere. It could succeed if they weren’t so pushy, but that’s not worth trillions in stock valuation.
0
0
0
Michael Westergaard
@michael@westergaard.social
Studying to be part of the problem. Listener of Britney songs, toucher of computers, knower of psychology.
westergaard.social
Michael Westergaard
@michael@westergaard.social
Studying to be part of the problem. Listener of Britney songs, toucher of computers, knower of psychology.
westergaard.social
@michael@westergaard.social
·
Sep 02, 2025
The people in charge CANNOT bail out now. That would mean writing off the giant investments. As long as the ball keeps rolling, the billions spent remain "an investment in the future," but the second they officially realize that a fancy T9 dictionary is really, really cool, yet ultimately not that useful and probably not the golden goose it was presented as, it is a "loss."
I did read that one company seemingly has a mostly sensible reaction to the hype. CEO of Apple, Tim Cook, has rejected buying several grifting companies (Tesla and Netflix) despite it being suggested by other higher ups, and SVP of Software Engineering Craig Federighi is hesitant to paying billions for AI grifters (Perplexity and Anthropic). macrumors.com/2025/08/26/apple-discussed-buying-mistral-ai-and-perplexity/
I did read that one company seemingly has a mostly sensible reaction to the hype. CEO of Apple, Tim Cook, has rejected buying several grifting companies (Tesla and Netflix) despite it being suggested by other higher ups, and SVP of Software Engineering Craig Federighi is hesitant to paying billions for AI grifters (Perplexity and Anthropic). macrumors.com/2025/08/26/apple-discussed-buying-mistral-ai-and-perplexity/
1
0
0
Michael Westergaard
@michael@westergaard.social
Studying to be part of the problem. Listener of Britney songs, toucher of computers, knower of psychology.
westergaard.social
Michael Westergaard
@michael@westergaard.social
Studying to be part of the problem. Listener of Britney songs, toucher of computers, knower of psychology.
westergaard.social
@michael@westergaard.social
·
Sep 01, 2025
It does not matter they draw less power when there are more of them.
Pretending I didn't notice your blatant attempt at whataboutism, I also complained about bitcoin wasting energy – and have for a decade now. You're using bitcoiners' fundamentally flawed argument that more efficient miners will solve the energy consumption: bitcoin has built in anti-efficiency so more energy efficient bitcoin mining will just lead to more bitcoin mining, not using less energy.
AI is exactly the same: while it might be more efficient to train per neuron or parameter (or other largely irrelevant parameters that grow faster than efficiency improvements), each subsequent model has taken more energy to train, disregarding theoretical and technical improvements to the process. There is absolutely no reason to expect it would be different in the future, and history has told us it is not.
Bitcoiners btw do the same thing you do: talk about their scam-tokens in future tense as if it is the present. They will be so great very shortly, so we might as well pretend they are great now.
Pretending I didn't notice your blatant attempt at whataboutism, I also complained about bitcoin wasting energy – and have for a decade now. You're using bitcoiners' fundamentally flawed argument that more efficient miners will solve the energy consumption: bitcoin has built in anti-efficiency so more energy efficient bitcoin mining will just lead to more bitcoin mining, not using less energy.
AI is exactly the same: while it might be more efficient to train per neuron or parameter (or other largely irrelevant parameters that grow faster than efficiency improvements), each subsequent model has taken more energy to train, disregarding theoretical and technical improvements to the process. There is absolutely no reason to expect it would be different in the future, and history has told us it is not.
Bitcoiners btw do the same thing you do: talk about their scam-tokens in future tense as if it is the present. They will be so great very shortly, so we might as well pretend they are great now.
0
1
0
Michael Westergaard
@michael@westergaard.social
Studying to be part of the problem. Listener of Britney songs, toucher of computers, knower of psychology.
westergaard.social
Michael Westergaard
@michael@westergaard.social
Studying to be part of the problem. Listener of Britney songs, toucher of computers, knower of psychology.
westergaard.social
@michael@westergaard.social
·
Sep 01, 2025
In 1985, there was around 30M-50M computers worldwide, and today there is an estimated 2B, 40+ times more.
While some computers in 1985 may have been mainframes, a lot were Commodore 64s or Apple IIs, so it's unlikely the average power consumption was over 40 times more to outweigh the factor 40 in numbers.
Not even counting that a typical computer around 2000 had a 200W-300W PSU while a typical (desktop) computer today has a 500-1000W PSU, and ignoring all mobile devices even though they are more used and way more powerful than a super computer in 1985.
When things are more efficient and cheaper, more people buy them. Typically in numbers that make the overall cost/consumption to up, not down, when things improve.
While some computers in 1985 may have been mainframes, a lot were Commodore 64s or Apple IIs, so it's unlikely the average power consumption was over 40 times more to outweigh the factor 40 in numbers.
Not even counting that a typical computer around 2000 had a 200W-300W PSU while a typical (desktop) computer today has a 500-1000W PSU, and ignoring all mobile devices even though they are more used and way more powerful than a super computer in 1985.
When things are more efficient and cheaper, more people buy them. Typically in numbers that make the overall cost/consumption to up, not down, when things improve.
0
1
0
Michael Westergaard
@michael@westergaard.social
Studying to be part of the problem. Listener of Britney songs, toucher of computers, knower of psychology.
westergaard.social
Michael Westergaard
@michael@westergaard.social
Studying to be part of the problem. Listener of Britney songs, toucher of computers, knower of psychology.
westergaard.social
@michael@westergaard.social
·
Sep 01, 2025
Reducing costs/energy savings does not reduce overall consumption. It lowers the barrier to entry, increasing demand and making the total use the same as or higher than before. AI will never be more efficient (until the bubble bursts).
0
1
0
Michael Westergaard
@michael@westergaard.social
Studying to be part of the problem. Listener of Britney songs, toucher of computers, knower of psychology.
westergaard.social
Michael Westergaard
@michael@westergaard.social
Studying to be part of the problem. Listener of Britney songs, toucher of computers, knower of psychology.
westergaard.social
@michael@westergaard.social
·
Mar 23, 2024
If you like that, you might like tom7’s contraption: a NES cartridge with a SNES in it youtube.com/watch?v=ar9WRwCiSr0
0
0
0
Michael Westergaard
@michael@westergaard.social
Studying to be part of the problem. Listener of Britney songs, toucher of computers, knower of psychology.
westergaard.social
Michael Westergaard
@michael@westergaard.social
Studying to be part of the problem. Listener of Britney songs, toucher of computers, knower of psychology.
westergaard.social
@michael@westergaard.social
·
Mar 20, 2024
Is the collection of people “winning” the Abel prize an abelian group?
0
0
0