It's not low-hanging fruit, though. While you try to optimise to save a couple of mWh in power use, a single search engine query uses 100x more and an LLM chat is another 100x of that. In other words: there's bigger fish to fry. Plus caching, lazy loading etc. mitigates most of this anyway.
Engineering-wise, it sometimes isn't. But it does send a signal that can also become a trend in society to be more respectful of our energy usage. Sometimes, it does make sense to focus on the most visible aspect of energy usage, rather than the most intensive. Just by making your website smaller and being vocal about it, you could reach 100,000 people if you get a lot of visitors, whereas Google isn't going to give a darn about even trying to send a signal.
I'd be 100% on board with you if you were able to show me a single - just a single - regular website user who'd care about energy usage of a first(!) site load.
I'm honestly just really annoyed about this "society and environment"-spin on advise that would have an otherwise niche, but perfectly valid reason behind it (TFA: slow satellite network on the high seas).
This might sound harsh and I don't mean it personally, but making your website smaller and "being vocal about it" (whatever you mean by that) doesn't make an iota of difference. It also only works if your site is basically just text. If your website uses other resources (images, videos, 3D models, audio, etc.), the impact of first load is just noise anyway.
You can have a bigger impact by telling 100,000 people to drive an hour less each month and if just 1% of your hypothetical audience actually does that, you'd achieve orders of magnitude more in terms of environmental and societal impact.
Perhaps you are right. But I do remember one guy who had a YouTube channel and he uploaded fairly low-quality videos at a reduced framerate to achieve a high level of compression, and he explicitly put in his video that he did it to save energy.
Now, it is true that it didn't save much because probably many people were uploaded 8K videos at the time, so drop in the bucket. But personally, I found it quite inspiring and his decision was instrumental in my deciding to never upload 4K. And in general, I will say that people like that do inspire me and keep me going to be as minimal as possible when I use energy in all domains.
For me at least, trying to optimize for using as little energy as possible isn't an engineering problem. It's a challenge to do it uniformly as much as possible, so it can't be subdivided. And I do think every little bit counts, and if I can spend time making my website smaller, I'll do that in case one person gets inspired by that. It's not like I'm a machine and my only goal is time efficiency....
Youtube's compression already butchers the quality of anything 1080p and below. Uploading in 1440p or 4K is the only way to get youtube to preserve at least some of the bitrate. There's a 1080p extra bitrate option available on some videos, but it's locked behind premium, so I'm not sure how well it works.
Depending on the type of video this may not matter, but it often does. For example, my FPS gaming and dashcam footage gets utterly destroyed if uploaded to youtube at 1080p. Youtube's 4K seems roughly equivalent to my high bitrate 1080p recordings.
Correct. It's even worse than that, they'll say they optimized the energy usage of their website by making it 1kb smaller and then fly overseas for holiday. How many billions of page loads would it take to approximate the environmental impact of a single intercontinental flight?
Realistically “my website fits in 14kb” is a terrible signal because it is invisible to 99.99% of the population. How many HNers inspect the network usage when loading a random stranger’s website?
Plus, trying to signal your way to societal change can have unintended downsides. It makes you feel you are doing something when you are actually not making any real impact. It attracts the kind of people who care more about signaling the right signals than doing the right thing into your camp.
You really don't know if it could become a trend or not. Certainly trends happen in the opposite direction, such as everyone using AI. I think every little difference you can make is a step in the right direction, and is not virtue signalling if you really apply yourself across all domains of life. But perhaps it is futile, given that there are so many defeatist individuals such as yourself crowding the world.
Sure there are more resource-heavy places but I think the problem is general approach.
Neglecting of performance and overall approach to resources brought us to these resource-heavy tools.
It seems just dismissive when people pointing to places where there could be made more cuts and call it a day.
If we want to really fix places with bigger impact we need to change this approach in a first place.
Sure thing, but's not low-hanging fruit. The impact is so miniscule that the effort required is too high when compared to the benefit.
This is micro-optimisation for a valid use case (slow connections in bandwidth-starved situations), but in the real world, a single hi-res image, short video clip, or audio sample would negate all your text-squeezing, HTTP header optimisation games, and struggle for minimalism.
So for the vast majority of use cases it's simply irrelevant. And no, your website is likely not going to get 1,000,000 unique visitors per hour so you'd have a hard time even measuring the impact whereas simply NOT ordering pizza and having a home made salad instead would have a measurable impact orders of magnitude greater.
Estimating the overall impact of your actions and non-actions is hard, but it's easier and more practical to optimise your assets, remove bloat (no megabytes of JS frameworks), and think about whether you really need that annoying full-screen video background. THOSE are low-hanging fruit with lots of impact. Trying to trim down a functional site to <14kB is NOT.
Of course, but my point is that it's still a constraint we should have in mind at every level. Dupont poisoning public water with pfas does not make you less of an arsehole if you toss your old iPhone in a pond for the sake of convenience.
