• bryndos@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    5 days ago

    That’d need watt hours though. Meme is only showing the instantaneous power required to conjure the image for an infinitesimal amount of time - you cant do any useful ‘work’ with it unless the time is accounted for. Watt seconds maybe.

    What makes me skeptikal of this data though is that the correct sciencing term for a billion watts is the well established ‘jiggawatt’. In this context I’d have also accepted the Canadian spelling ‘jigglewatt’.

      • bryndos@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 days ago

        yes, which is what you’d measure to compare the energy efficiency of completing a job.

    • unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      Yeah no. Imagine it like a computer and screen. To render an image it will momentarily consume a bit more power, but as soon as it has been rendered it will still continuosily consume a stable amount of x Watt to keep running and displaying the picture. For continuous stable operation of something with no specified time, Watt is the correct unit.