• taladar@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    16 hours ago

    Considering your average printer is a piece of shit that needs to be replaced quite often, yes, using a website is probably more energy efficient.

    • timbuck2themoon@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      13 hours ago

      That and those servers are going to be running anyway. Powering a simple restaurant website is a grain of sand on the beach of internet usage.

      • enkers@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        10 hours ago

        Yeah, exactly. If you’re worried about the power draw to host a few hundred KB PDF file, you probably shouldn’t be using Lemmy, because scrolling through your feed probably uses 100x that in energy costs.

        You have to remember that the shared hosting or aws, or wherever is going to be cheapest to host a simple website is also going to be very power efficient. Wasting power is just throwing away free money, and if there’s one thing corporations don’t do, it’s throw away free money.

    • minibyte@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      16 hours ago

      Most companies will be using laser printers, some of which may outlive me. Toner is cheap and lasts an age.

      Inkjet printers are cheap for a reason. They’re a scam.