this post was submitted on 04 Mar 2024
65 points (89.2% liked)

Antiwork

8259 readers
1 users here now

  1. We're trying to improving working conditions and pay.

  2. We're trying to reduce the numbers of hours a person has to work.

  3. We talk about the end of paid work being mandatory for survival.

Partnerships:

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
all 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] solarvector@lemmy.zip 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Good graph, hate the presentation of "X times less". Just not intuitive and very frequently calculated incorrectly.

[–] delirious_owl@discuss.online 3 points 1 year ago

Should say "27 times more efficient"

[–] delirious_owl@discuss.online 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

What? No, sorry an electric bicycle is not more efficient than a non-electric bicycle. What data fuckery is this?

Any electrical system is going to loose energy compared to the human body.

Edit: oh, this should be cross posted to data visualization gore. The more efficient thing is to the right and smaller. But the chart makes it seem like the electric car is the most efficient. Probably they should add red & green colors to make it clear that "electric car big line bad"

Also "27 time less energy" is like saying "cup half full" and should instead say "27 times more efficient"

[–] InputZero@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The design of the graph aside, I would really like it to include something for public transit. A train may take 1 kWh to travel 1 Km but if that train is carrying 150 - 450 passengers how much more efficient is it than an electric car? What about a bus, light rail, or subway?

[–] agent_flounder@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

an electric bicycle is not more efficient than a non-electric bicycle.

I thought that's exactly what the graph shows, though?? The way I am reading the graph, the ebike is less efficient per mile -- requires more energy per mile -- than a non-electric bike, just as you would expect.

[–] delirious_owl@discuss.online 2 points 1 year ago

You're right, its just not a very good way to display that data imho

[–] delirious_owl@discuss.online 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Pretty fucked up. Do actual energy efficiency (calories burned per km) and you'll quickly see the bicycle is far above everything

[–] wildcherry@slrpnk.net 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

From a quick search:

  • Cycling = 23kcal / km
  • Tesla: 120kcal / km

There was an article in cars magazine saying that cyclists were especially polluting. In teir study (in europe), the hypothetical cyclist was only eating Argentine beef lol. So no I do not swallow it.