this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2025
427 points (94.0% liked)

Science Memes

16447 readers
2567 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 21 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Its continuous to keep the image active in your mind :)

[–] bryndos@fedia.io 3 points 21 hours ago (3 children)

That'd need watt hours though. Meme is only showing the instantaneous power required to conjure the image for an infinitesimal amount of time - you cant do any useful 'work' with it unless the time is accounted for. Watt seconds maybe.

What makes me skeptikal of this data though is that the correct sciencing term for a billion watts is the well established 'jiggawatt'. In this context I'd have also accepted the Canadian spelling 'jigglewatt'.

[–] BussyGyatt@feddit.org 2 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

not "infinitesimal time." continuously. think of it like this: to continuously think up perky tits, it takes a human mind 12 watts- brain is a 12 watt computer. time interval is proportional to the number of titty images/length of titty video. and im psure an individual instance of titty ai doesn't come out to 2.7 jigglewatts- im like 80% sure i can get a (small) titty generator to run on my lil 50 watt phone. not testing that assumption today tho.

[–] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

Yeah no. Imagine it like a computer and screen. To render an image it will momentarily consume a bit more power, but as soon as it has been rendered it will still continuosily consume a stable amount of x Watt to keep running and displaying the picture. For continuous stable operation of something with no specified time, Watt is the correct unit.

[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 2 points 21 hours ago (1 children)
[–] bryndos@fedia.io 2 points 11 hours ago

yes, which is what you'd measure to compare the energy efficiency of completing a job.