this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2025
846 points (98.4% liked)

People Twitter

8774 readers
1515 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
  4. No bullying or international politcs
  5. Be excellent to each other.
  6. Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician. Archive.is the best way.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] yobasari@feddit.org 196 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (10 children)

The numbers are are also clearly fictive. Driving a car for 4 miles uses about half a liter of fuel. A liter of gasoline contains about 9kwh of energy meaning, that you would use about 4.5 kwh per half hour of streaming. So the servers would have to draw about 9 KW to serve a single person? That would be like 10 gaming PCs running at full power to serve one person. Are they animating the shows in real time? No compression algorithm is that inefficient and no hard drive uses that much energy.

edit: also they could never be profitable like that. Let's say you watch three hours per day. That would be 9kWx3hrsx30days=810kwh per month. Even if they only pay 5 cents a kWh that would still be over $40 per month just in electricity cost for one user.

[–] AdolfSchmitler@lemmy.world 64 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

Thanks for doing the math. I'm not gonna check it, you seem trustworthy enough.

[–] Nusm@peachpie.theatl.social 21 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

I’m not gonna check the numbers either. Because I have no idea how. And I don’t even understand them.

So obviously he’s right!

[–] doughless@lemmy.world 13 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

The numbers aren't too difficult to verify.

I found this Canadian government web page that says it's roughly 8.9 kWh, so that checks out.

Looking at the fuel efficiency table on that same website, it looks like OP used a reasonable average fuel efficiency of 30 mpg or slightly under 8L/100km: 4 miles / 30mpg = 0.13 gallons, or 0.492 liters, so their claim of half a liter of gas also checks out.

The cheapest commercial energy in the US appears to be in North Dakota at $0.0741/kWh, so using $0.05/kWh was very generous.

The average Netflix user watches about 2 hours per day, or 60 hours per month.

Just in an attempt to be a bit more accurate, let's assume the individual user's television and internet router use about 900W, so we'll use a final number of 8kW for Netflix's power use per user.

8 kW * 60 hours= 480 kWh

And the cost of all of those kWh at $0.05: 480 kWh * $0.05 = $24.00

Or, the cost in the least expensive state in the US: 480 kWh * $0.0741 = $35.57

National average is $0.14/kWh, so unless Netflix was serving everyone out of North Dakota and Texas, their average cost per user would be much closer to $70 per user.

OP's numbers were definitely already accurate enough for the point. Basically, there's no possible way Netflix needs that much electricity to serve their users.

[–] yeather@lemmy.ca 4 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

I checked them Adolf, the numbers are accurate.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 24 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

I prefer to think that this post is unrealistically optimistic. If you drive an electric car and live in Quebec, this could very well be true. For reference, Quebec's electric grid is just about 100% hydroelectric power, so your driving emissions would be close to 0.

[–] yobasari@feddit.org 10 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

I only looked at power consumption, not emissions. If the electricity produced is emissions free than the emissions for both driving and streaming would be zero. So the original statement would be true, but meaningless. But lets compare the energy consumption with an EV. At 15kwh/100km(4.14mi/kWh) the EV would need 15kwh/100km*6,44km=0.966kwh for 4 miles. That still leaves us with a power draw of 1.932KW. That is closer to a realistic but I still don't think the power consumption of streaming is that high.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] mushroommunk@lemmy.today 11 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

I'm not saying their numbers are correct but you are missing: Routers ( four minimum, Netflix data center, backbone isp, local isp, your house), TV, for many a streaming device which can range from the TV itself to a PS5 or gaming PC, and for many a soundbar or amp and speakers.

They probably took max load for all those devices and lumped that all together which, yeah max load isn't right and the routers should actually be split amongst many many houses but it is all part of streaming.

[–] ozymandias@sh.itjust.works 12 points 7 hours ago

reminds me of when they use to calculate financial losses from a hack, they would add in the full cost of any hardware touched, and the full price to develop any of the software touched…
ending up at dozens of millions of dollars, just because some looked at a thing
like if you spray painted a wall on building and they charged you with the entire cost of building the entire structure.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 8 points 6 hours ago

Don't forget that the grids that power these servers are mixed too, not 100% fossil fuels. And even if they were coal-fired, power generation is more efficient than internal combustion engines.

Likely it'd have to be at LEAST 30-40 kW to serve a single person for it to be equivalent, but I can't be arsed to do the math.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] AtariDump@lemmy.world 83 points 9 hours ago (3 children)
[–] RickyRigatoni@retrolemmy.com 18 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (2 children)

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

[–] canihasaccount@lemmy.world 10 points 8 hours ago (3 children)

I thought that was Gabe Newell

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] OpenStars@piefed.social 7 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

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

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] PalmTreeIsBestTree@lemmy.world 7 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

I do find it funny they use an old 1950s smoky long range bomber as an example

[–] FordBeeblebrox@lemmy.world 9 points 6 hours ago

If a B-52 is smoking like that it does NOT have a long range anymore

[–] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 6 points 7 hours ago

Honestly, if jets left trails that looked like this then nobody would want to fly so much, and public outcry would be a lot louder.

[–] fonix232@fedia.io 66 points 7 hours ago (1 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] BroBot9000@lemmy.world 40 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Blue checkmarks fund Nazis

[–] cron@feddit.org 9 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

This screenshot is from before twitter was aquired.

[–] BroBot9000@lemmy.world 21 points 8 hours ago

Top account still has their blue checkmark… and bottom still hasn’t deleted their account.

Funding and participating with Nazis is still supporting them.

collapsed inline media

[–] TrojanRoomCoffeePot@lemmy.world 29 points 6 hours ago (1 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.

[–] Tower@lemmy.zip 6 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] TrojanRoomCoffeePot@lemmy.world 3 points 3 hours ago

After the spiel, believe it or not, I feel kind of guilty accepting that compliment given that I meant flared-end-first when suggesting they fuck themselves with the BR40's...

collapsed inline media

[–] dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world 26 points 6 hours ago (1 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.

[–] bizzle@lemmy.world 3 points 3 hours ago

It's time to execute Peter Thiel

[–] bizzle@lemmy.world 23 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 15 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

There are several industries that can make that claim

[–] bizzle@lemmy.world 9 points 5 hours ago

I'm sure that's true but I hate the commercial fishing industry the most 💜

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] jaybone@lemmy.zip 22 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 22 points 5 hours ago (1 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.

[–] usualsuspect191@lemmy.ca 20 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 5 points 5 hours ago (2 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.

[–] rbos@lemmy.ca 8 points 4 hours ago (1 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".

[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 4 points 4 hours ago (1 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.

[–] rbos@lemmy.ca 4 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] null@piefed.nullspace.lol 21 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

Now try saying this about AI

[–] Saprophyte@lemmy.world 12 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Using the words thank you to respond to Alexa uses the same amount of gasoline a wood chipper takes to consume eleven spotted owls.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 19 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

This is just flat out bullshit. Flat out.

[–] mineralfellow@lemmy.world 4 points 2 hours ago

Exactly! Oil isn't dinosaur juice. They lube up with dead plants. Don't make it seem glamorous.

[–] wildncrazyguy138@fedia.io 13 points 9 hours 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.

[–] U7826391786239@lemmy.zip 8 points 8 hours ago

you exist. and i can't help but notice that you don't feel bad enough about that

[–] BradleyUffner@lemmy.world 7 points 9 hours ago

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

[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 7 points 9 hours ago (3 children)

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

.../s

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Ininewcrow@piefed.ca 6 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 4 points 2 hours ago (1 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] k0e3@lemmy.ca 4 points 8 hours ago

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

[–] Avicenna@programming.dev 4 points 7 hours ago

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

load more comments
view more: next ›