But we are not talking about a malicious ssg, we are talking about a vulnerable ssg that somehow needs to be patched. Unless your ssg connects to the internet, this is a non issue.
The typical modern gaming PC uses a lot more power than the original xbox. Yes maybe it's more efficient because it's doing "more", but in the end it's one person playing a game.
Depending on what you are patching, it will invalidate a great part of the cache, and you will be looking at very long build times for everything in your system.
The rationale would be that it might be more efficient to WASM-decode JXL than to download a JPEG, especially in pages with lots of images, but I would want a fallback if the browser does not support WASM.
https://cosarara.me/misc/jxljs/ in my test, it will simply fall back to jpeg, even if the jxl.js library is loaded (scroll down to Image with fallback).
Is it possible to fall back to a jpeg if the browser does not support js, wasm, or web workers? With a <picture> element, maybe?
I did some tests on my own server and found that for some reason it's quite fast when running on https, but super slow on insecure http. Not sure why that is, maybe the browser disallows something that's important here for insecure connections.
And I think that, sadly, it's not even a full solution, because linux can manage to get thrashing even without swap. It pages in and out things like memory mapped files or the content of executables of stopped processes. See for instance:
https://serverfault.com/questions/898388/how-to-prevent-kern...
Maybe, or maybe the new equipment is much more efficient than the one it's replacing. It sounds true, but you can't really tell if it is or not, and really my annoyance is in saying it costs any estimated amount of energy, or carbon, to transfer 1GB of data. It does not, the transfer itself is basically cost-less. What costs money is running the infrastructure that makes it possible, and that's much harder to measure.
I don't agree with the reasoning presented.
It takes the estimate for the amount of energy that it takes to run the internet infrastructure and clients (141GW * 8765h in a year = 1235865 GWh), divides it by the amount of data transferred yearly (241 billion GB) and gets to 5.12kWh/GB.
You might argue that if people download more data, more equipment needs to run to enable it, but really all this energy consumption is happening regardless of my PC being idle or saturating its fiber pipes with torrents. If your website weights 14kb, all this same equipment needs to be on for my PC to load it.