California bans some high-power computers.

[jim bell]

    On Friday, July 30, 2021, 10:38:22 PM PDT, Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn at rushpost.com> wrote:  
 
 On 7/30/21 23:59, jim bell wrote [quoting a Republican Daily article]:
>> Americans know California is fond of banning all types of pleasure and
>> progress. So it may come as no surprise that the state has adopted new
>> regulations that have ended up effectively banning a new top-of-the-line
>>> gaming PC from Dell. The reason? The new technology uses too much
>> energy. That’s right, a highly advanced PC cannot be sold in California
>> – the state with the fifth largest economy in the world and that is home
> to the heart of the tech industry – because it uses a lot of power."

>I'm confused by this article. If it's just energy consumption related to
actual computing power and these computers are no less energy efficient
factoring in the higher computing power, I have a huge problem with it.

I very much doubt that California has made an intelligent distinction, here.  My understanding  is that over the years, measures like 'watts per gigaflop' for computer equipment has very much improved.  If anything, the total power consumption of computers hasn't increased (much) since 1990, but they get a lot more compute done for those watts.  
>However if it's really about energy efficiency, as in these computers
could be built with the same amount of computing power and use less
energy to do the same work without sacrificing performance, then that's
a problem Dell needs to fix.
I think that's highly unlikely in this case.  With a given level of IC technology, you're probably going to get a very similar rating in 'power/gate-hertz'.  The main way to improve that figure is to build ICs using tinier components, and they are already down to 10 nanometers (and well below that).  

>I'm hesitant to make any kind of decision based on a blatantly right
wing story, that actually has "Republican" as part of the publication
title no less (!). I'd like to see a more balanced story from, say, Wired."
As I just pointed out to Prof, this was merely the first article I encountered.  I figure that everybody has his own 'spin' to put on this story.  And finding such a different article is as simple as 'california ban computer'.  
I could add, with my legal knowledge, that I believe it would violate the US Constitution's guarantee of free interstate commerce for a state to obstruct transporting products across state lines for this kind of reason.  The Founding Fathers didn't want the various states to act like independent countries, and erect trade barriers between themselves.  
If anything, it's a rarity that Congress granted California the power to erect lower pollution-control standards in about 1972 than applied to the rest of America.  I understood California needed it, at that time:  I visited LA in 1969 (for the moon landing) and yes, I saw the smog.  But I don't think they justified maintaining such heightened standards for the next 5 decades.  
            Jim Bell



  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 4890 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20210731/d861dfbc/attachment.txt>