Re: Introducing a new HTTP response header for Carbon Emissions calculation

Sorry I'm late to the party so to speak, calving season. Even without my own cattle... they're still on my ranch I keep ag-zoned by leasing out my land and services.



---- On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 13:30:12 -0700 Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote ---


"including the overhead of unused provisioning for availability"


Single-entry bookkeeping just doesn't work for cattle, gotta account for land recovering from what a cow/calf "unit" grazes and that's weather-dependent, on dry land. Did I irrigate my hay field, thus depriving yonder hydro plant due to evaporative losses? 



"It will depend on source of power"



What the power utility charges me does not reflect what it's costing them to deliver that power to me, from one day to the next. This data is hidden from me by an abstraction layer...


"or by failure to deallocate unused servers"



The big disappointment for AWS early adopters was lack of automation for this problem. So easy to online more resources...


"Unless it is mining-as-a-service"



Gonna hafta steal that one from you, Roy. Literally where coal mining in my area is headed now that they're shutting down the power plants (not upgrading to CH4).

"If you want to know the carbon footprint of a service, you need the total cost of 
its provision, and then amortize that across time and customer demand. This is..."


...exactly how an ISP/Webhost calculates COGS for accounting/reporting purposes.
 
"This is a resource, not a header field."


Couldn't have said it better myself. 



-Eric

Received on Monday, 19 June 2023 04:27:31 UTC