Hacker Read

TchoBeer · 2022-12-16 10:23:54

>They run at 30-35% efficiency with a humongous amount of machinery to support them.

Oh wow, I didn't know that, yikes. Can link me a source to find out more?

reply

tasuki | karma 3058 | avg karma 1.7 · | 2020-01-29 11:37:53+00:00

> affordable, but efficiency is so-so. 70-80% according to Wikipedia

Say what? So-so? 70-80% efficiency sounds pretty damn amazing!

reply

MuffinFlavored | karma 4217 | avg karma 1.27 · | 2022-11-03 20:58:52

> saw that they are highly inefficient.

source?

reply

Florin_Andrei | karma 6700 | avg karma 2.16 · | 2020-08-20 14:36:43

> It is 60-70% efficient

Funny - in a lot of other technology sectors, that would count as pretty good efficiency.

reply

samirm | karma 113 | avg karma 0.5 · | 2018-10-03 17:58:13

>This drives the efficiency wonks absolutely bonkers.

what do you mean by that?

reply

sshine | karma 4878 | avg karma 2.83 · | 2023-03-07 17:31:25

> It’s just so wildly more efficient in operation.

Can you elaborate?

reply

vineyardmike | karma 7130 | avg karma 2.33 · | 2022-09-17 13:26:29

> many pockets of inefficiency with respect to engineering headcount,

This is assumed. The hard part is finding them.

reply

ithkuil | karma 7515 | avg karma 2.06 · | 2023-05-08 04:31:01

> Especially if nobody can actually quantitatively measure the loss of efficiency.

Yet ironically they care and tout about their ability to measuring efficiency.

An easy way to boost efficiency: hide inefficiency out from view!

reply

quaintdev | karma 3382 | avg karma 8.0 · | 2024-05-26 12:05:04

But how efficient is it? I don't see that info in the article.

et2o | karma 2616 | avg karma 3.04 · | 2019-07-06 15:13:23+00:00

Kind of an asinine comment then. Presumably anyone reading that article would know about efficiency.

nkingsy | karma 1485 | avg karma 2.91 · | 2021-10-23 09:48:17

The article clearly states a claimed 92% efficiency.

scarby2 | karma 523 | avg karma 2.12 · | 2022-11-04 10:03:48

> actually significantly less efficient

It's less energy efficient. It's significantly more time efficient and ergonomic.

reply

rosser | karma 21327 | avg karma 5.98 · | 2016-06-21 06:12:02

If that's the case, then why did the sentence I quoted specifically say "energy efficiency"?

eric-hu | karma 1639 | avg karma 1.92 · | 2016-07-22 04:59:37+00:00

That's interesting. It demonstrates my point that a large machine is not to be disregarded just because of its inefficiencies.

shoo | karma 5066 | avg karma 2.62 · | 2018-09-15 22:26:44+00:00

> How can you be neutral on the topic of efficiency? Efficiency is better full stop.

Efficiency in doing what, exactly?

Efficiency might measure output of X as a function of input Y. Is having more X actually helpful or harmful?

How will the overall system respond if it suddenly becomes possible to more efficiently transform Y into X? (This can lead to higher rate of consumption of Y)

Does a strategy for increasing X / Y happen to damage some other valuable things A, B, C that aren't captured in the definition of the subsystem of X and Y we're trying to optimise?

reply

jjoonathan | karma 24567 | avg karma 4.71 · | 2014-09-19 04:01:28+00:00

> economies of scale

So what you're saying is that it's actually more efficient?

> subsidies from small profitable corners

The inefficient parts subsidize already efficient parts making both parts more efficient in the process.

reply

adastra22 | karma 6858 | avg karma 2.11 · | 2022-10-06 04:50:51

30% more efficient according to the article.

sanswork | karma 3708 | avg karma 2.15 · | 2017-06-20 13:40:47

>I think they're demonstrably more efficient even on paper.

Can you demonstrate this for me now because I'm honestly not sure what you mean.

reply

unityByFreedom | karma 2531 | avg karma 1.44 · | 2021-12-16 23:46:15

> ... in ways that are several orders of magnitude more efficient and more capable.

Another thing that gets bandied about, emphasis mine.

reply

darkmighty | karma 2280 | avg karma 1.83 · | 2018-11-23 20:04:19+00:00

Oh thanks. I hadn't actually plugged in the numbers, shame on me :P

It seems the maximum efficiency in this case is ~94.8%, so the claim does seem plausible at least.

reply