this post was submitted on 25 Jun 2026
96 points (95.3% liked)

Technology

85695 readers
4452 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works -3 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

I'm not sure what argument or point you're trying to make here. Why do you think they're using water, exactly? And surely you must realise how efficiency and cost are linked?

[–] Arcane2077@sh.itjust.works 6 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

I don’t know how to be any clearer.

LOW COST > HIGH COST.

It’s money. The goal is to save as much money as possible. Businesses, corporations, contractors, investors. All the people making decisions are trying to save every bit of money possible.

Surely you realize heat transfer efficiency isn’t linked to the cost of water. Which doesn’t even show up on the balance sheet.

100 * 0 = 100000000 * 0

[–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works -5 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

Do you genuinely think I didn't know businesses want to save money? Why are you telling me this?

[–] sqgl@sh.itjust.works 7 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

You seem to have a hard time understanding that water is used because it is cheaper than the alternatives which already exist. This new development won't replace water while the water remains cheap.

[–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works -3 points 5 hours ago

Are you talking about evaporative cooling? Because this new system still very much uses water, in a closed loop.

And I'm aware water is cheap, it falls out of the sky.

[–] Mac@mander.xyz 2 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

After your previous comment, i thought that about you as well.

[–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works -2 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Why do people keep acting like a company wanting to save money is a revelation? It's so blindingly obvious, there's no need to tell everyone all the time?

[–] Mac@mander.xyz 3 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

You're the one who asked. Don't ask questions you don't want answers to, i guess?

[–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works -1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Their argument was that companies don't care about efficiency, they just want to save money. Without realising they're the same thing. As far as I can tell, they were arguing with themselves.

[–] jumjummy@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

Cost and efficiency may not be the same at all. If the true cost of a utility like water aren’t being passed on to the businesses, then they don’t need to focus on efficiency.

See literally any of the giant farms with legacy water rights in California to understand why there is very little incentive for them to become more efficient with water usage.