971
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] eager_eagle@lemmy.world 304 points 1 month ago

The power of 21000 homes for advertising.

What's most impressive is that it is even legal.

[-] LodeMike@lemmy.today 105 points 1 month ago
[-] CosmoNova@lemmy.world 40 points 1 month ago

Is it? Last I‘ve heard it was bleeding money.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] treadful@lemmy.zip 40 points 1 month ago

I love this kind of shit. Building things for the sake of it is worth it. Not only as just expression, which may be hubris but it's still expression. Also entertainment, inspiration, pushing the art of engineering, and just giving people something to do, and all the good that comes with that like personal and trade growth.

A purely utilitarian life is a life only spent on survival. Not a life I want to live.

[-] assassinatedbyCIA@lemmy.world 84 points 1 month ago

We can do that, but first let’s make sure everyone on the planet has clean water first.

[-] nooneescapesthelaw@mander.xyz 17 points 1 month ago

The money spent on this would not have been spent on giving clean water to people thousands of miles away

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] todd_bonzalez@lemm.ee 50 points 1 month ago

A purely utilitarian life is a life only spent on survival. Not a life I want to live.

Well, that hubris won't afford you a livable world for much longer.

We could have respected the planet that birthed us, and taken only what we needed. Instead we extracted every natural resource we could find, and left behind countless shattered ecosystems. Even as the walls close in, we accelerate our pettiness and perform acts of wastefulness that alone do measurable ecological damage, and we celebrate it because it is "cool".

load more comments (180 replies)
[-] rasensprenger@feddit.org 25 points 1 month ago

I understand that perspective, but does it really have to be advertising?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] PunnyName@lemmy.world 247 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Currently, an agreement is under review to ensure that 70% of the Sphere's power needs will come from solar sources, with the other 30% from non-renewable energy that will be offset by renewable energy credits.

Ahh yes, energy credits. AKA bullshit.

[-] holgersson@lemm.ee 58 points 1 month ago

We shouldnt call them energy credits, but rather indulgences.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] brbposting@sh.itjust.works 18 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Hey!

They’re not always BS. Just most of the time!

Or are they? Some of the companies who are the best at it and seem to be genuinely trying have been shown not to be able to guarantee one way or the other.

“Wait, someone cut down that forest we planted?!” (no joke)


Edit: see REC clarification below (thanks!)

[-] RvTV95XBeo@sh.itjust.works 17 points 1 month ago

Just to be clear, renewable energy credits are different than carbon offsets, and easier to guarantee because they're often tied directly to a metered renewable energy source.

That said, there are still junk RECs on the market, like those tied to energy that was produced up to 2 decades ago that nobody got around to claiming / retiring. Or RECs tied to energy sources that may have happened regardless of the REC sale.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] danc4498@lemmy.world 145 points 1 month ago

Currently, an agreement is under review to ensure that 70% of the Sphere's power needs will come from solar sources, with the other 30% from non-renewable energy that will be offset by renewable energy credits.

Nevada has pledged to achieve net zero emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050, and the solar project under construction to help offset its energy debt is estimated to complete in 2027.

How stupid is it that somebody can claim “Net Zero” greenhouse gas emissions when 30% of their power is greenhouse gas.

Just gonna throw this out there. Fuck credits, charge a carbon tax.

[-] capital@lemmy.world 67 points 1 month ago

We'll also ignore the fact that that solar could have been used to offset actual needs instead of this BS.

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 29 points 1 month ago

The word net does a lot of heavy lifting and it’s just a scam

You can use 100% coal power and claim net zero by buying a forest

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world 136 points 1 month ago

Las Vegas in general is a testament to the hubris of humanity and an admittedly impressive technical feat. Does it even exist without the Hoover Dam?

[-] batmaniam@lemmy.world 56 points 1 month ago

I don't know about power, but Vegas is actually incredibly water efficient. Due to the way the water rights work with the Colorado river, they're not allowed very much, but it doesn't "count" if you put it back in. So nearly every drop they use is treated and put back (probably cleaner, tbh). Boggles the brain, but somehow it's actually a fairly sustainable city. More than any other other major metro, in any event.

[-] DevopsPalmer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 32 points 1 month ago

Considering they are in a literal desert, they would have to be fairly sustainable to exist in the first place. Not saying it's not super impressive, my dad lived out there when they were building up a lot of the expanded infrastructure and he has some cool stories about how he saw the desert on the outskirts disappear as they added in all the water and transportation stuff

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] InvaderDJ@lemmy.world 76 points 1 month ago

It's funny, I think Vegas is perfectly fine as the city of sin so things like this really don't phase me. It was built on the idea of crime and excess.

What does seem weird to me is how in a desert, why isn't everything solar? The sun is their only natural resource besides sand. Every rooftop and parking lot and flat surface possible seems like it should be a panel.

load more comments (12 replies)
[-] dan@upvote.au 62 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

28,000,000 watts

That's usually written as 28MW. I know some Americans don't like metric much, but one of the points of metric is that you don't ever need to write that many zeroes - you just need to use the right prefix (kilo, mega, giga, tera, etc) on the unit.

[-] ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml 32 points 1 month ago

True, but 28 million watts really puts things in perspective when your average PSU is less than 1000w.

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] todd_bonzalez@lemm.ee 55 points 1 month ago

Wait, why do they need 150 GPUs for a 1.2 megapixel display?

That's less than 1080p!

Who engineered this monstrosity?

[-] yggdar@lemmy.world 56 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

They say there are 16 screens inside, each with a 16k resolution. Such a screen would have 16x as many pixels as a 4k screen. The GPUs power those as well.

For the number of GPUs it appears to make sense. 150 GPUs for the equivalent of about 256 4k screens means each GPU handles +-2 4k screens. That doesn't sound like a lot, but it could make sense.

The power draw of 28 MW still seems ridiculous to me though. They claim about 45 kW for the GPUs, which leaves 27955 kW for everything else. Even if we assume the screens are stupid and use 1 kw per 4k segment, that only accounts for 256 kW, leaving 27699 kW. Where the fuck does all that energy go?! Am I missing something?

[-] Vanix@lemmy.world 42 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

This is a complete shot in the dark but could the huge power draw come from needing some intense industrial cooling/airflow stuff in/on the sphere?

Edit: forgot a word

[-] empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com 34 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The big power draw is because of the sheer amount of light it dumps out. You try lighting up 54,000 square meters of LED panel to a few hundred nits like a pc monitor, and see how much power it takes.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] werefreeatlast@lemmy.world 33 points 1 month ago

And a waste of electricity?

[-] JackbyDev@programming.dev 26 points 1 month ago

I believe that's implied in the "hubris" bit.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 19 points 1 month ago

Its one of the smaller atrocities in Vegas, particularly when compared to the Bellagio Fountain or the food waste generated by all those casino dining halls.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] xthexder@l.sw0.com 32 points 1 month ago

I don't know what they need so many GPUs for. There's 16 displays inside, and the sphere itself has fewer pixels than even 1 of the internal displays. You could probably run the sphere off a laptop if you aren't trying to do anything fancy.

Maybe they plan on doing crazy live simulations on it or something. I can't imagine what kind of displayed image would actually use all 150 of them. Nvidia A6000 cards are damn powerful.

[-] yardy_sardley@lemmy.ca 23 points 1 month ago

Probably have a few cards running the displays and the rest of them mining some sphere-themed memecoin

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] Zachariah@lemmy.world 31 points 1 month ago

Add a solar array and battery bank, a you might even have electricity left over. It’s in the desert after all.

[-] LodeMike@lemmy.today 21 points 1 month ago

Still a waste of energy because that could be used for the general grid

[-] Zachariah@lemmy.world 18 points 1 month ago

I wouldn’t say entertainment is a waste of energy even if there are nobler uses for the power.

[-] LodeMike@lemmy.today 37 points 1 month ago

Advertising may be entertaining but it's not entertainment

load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
[-] magnetosphere@fedia.io 28 points 1 month ago

I hope the name “dystopia sphere” catches on.

[-] blind3rdeye@lemm.ee 25 points 1 month ago

Is the 'dystopia-sphere' trying to compete with the torment nexus or something?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] drunkpostdisaster@lemmy.world 20 points 1 month ago

Might as well just give up on the earth right now I guess

[-] MonkderDritte@feddit.de 20 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

If they reversed it (displays inside), it would be the best immersive gaming setup ever.

Edit: looks like they are inside.

[-] Tire@lemmy.ml 29 points 1 month ago

That’s what it is on the inside.

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] root@precious.net 20 points 1 month ago

Using the max power use of a video card to math this is ridiculous. It's not at full TDP pushing this content. They aren't playing max FPS 3D raytraced gaming, they're playing videos.

[-] ByteJunk@lemmy.world 27 points 1 month ago

What.

The article says that, for the GPUs, they can have a "maximum power draw of 45,000 W at full tilt".

The 28 million W comes from the full system, and surely the massive displays, LEDs and eventually sound system makes up the bulk of that, the gfx cards are a rounding error...

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2024
971 points (95.7% liked)

Technology

57175 readers
3868 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 content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  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, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS