top 18 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 19 points 3 years ago

It's plausible that it's talking about electrical energy (Escalator, Lift etc) rather than physical. Though yeah I get where you're coming from, would bother me also.

  • source
  • [–] 18 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Y'all are taking this sign too literally. It's pretty common to refer to electricity more generally as "energy."

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    Isn’t it “cal” vs “kcal” (kilocalories), as in 1000cal?

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 3 years ago* (2 children)

    Technically, yeah, 1 kilocalorie (kcal) = 1000 calories (cal), but in a lot of places (e.g. Americuh), we use the "Calorie" (with a capital C) in place of the kilocalorie.

    In other words:

    1 kilocalorie = 1 Calorie = 1000 calories
    (1 kcal = 1 Cal = 1000 cal)
    

    Yes, it is exactly as stupid as it sounds.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    That’s why they can’t have nice things

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Trust me, I wish we made more sense. It would make my life a hell of a lot easier. Lol.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago

    Not being bothered by stuff like this seems to be one of the reasons people start using terms that are actually wrong instead of just ambiguous. Like 2K to describe QHD.

    I will never let that one go.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 3 years ago

    I think they mean electrical energy

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    Energy in = energy out.

    This means even if you wanted to be environmentally conscious and take the stairs rather than using electrical energy to move the elevator, somewhere there is still energy being spent to create the food that's giving you that energy, and the electrical grid and elevator can do it at a way higher efficiency than you and the agricultural industry can, especially once multiple passengers are involved.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago

    Kinda true, but not because of the formula. Elevators are really efficient now because of constant innovation. The actual dilemma is that you 'should' use elevators if they are already installed, but considering their construction they are way less energy efficient.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago

    I suspect the actual energy cost of going up a few flights of stairs is entirely negligible compared to the subsequent reduction in energy usage for transportation of said human if their weight were reduced.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago

    Yeah sign is clear as mud.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›