/sci/ - Science & Math

No, that's what engineers would do as well.

Me no speak-a da Engrish.

>Choose something that doesn't do the right things, but what it does do is really efficiently.
Pointless

>choosing one over the other
>not compromising between the two based on requirements

>>3593958

Does your life have a point?

>>3593974
Yes

>>3593958

If something's really efficiently done, how wrong could it be?

>>3593974
Yup.

>>3593980

What's your goal, could you share it?

>>3593988
All death sentences are now carried out by a single bullet to the head.

Wait.......

>>3593990

>3593992

The fuck are you even talking about, OP?

If something is ineffective then it's not really efficient either.

>>3593997

What makes you think that sentenced person, didn't plan a perfect crime?

>>3594019
....what? You completely misunderstood that.

>>3594024

Well, you weren't efficient...wait ..

>>3594011

We're not talking absolutes here.

>effectiveness, over efficiency
If something is efficent in a different task than the one needed then it's not effective.
Example: I want to buy new shoes.
a) running shoes (effective)
b) a coffee machine that wastes very little energy (efficient)
.
If something is bothe effective and efficent then you have
effectiveness, over effectiveness plus efficiency
7/10

>>3594042

Then the question is meaningless. Efficiency is a function of effectiveness.

>>3594044
>3594042

>>3594057

It's meaningless, it's about what you have at the end goddamnit, which is supposed to be what you want, right?

>>3593988
look at McDonalds food

No OP, that's retarded. Technically speaking, the most efficient method of lighting is to have no lights and rely on the sun. You still get roughly half a day of usable light, and it uses no resources whatsoever. Infinite efficiency!

>>3594102

"what you have" ....

etc., KFC

>>3594109

Technically it's not retarded if you know how to, and can use it.

the most efficient method for constant lighting lighting would be using the sun during the day, and charging batteries with high efficient solar cells, then using LED lighting

BUT, LED bulbs cost about $45-60,and the solar cells/batteries needed just to power lights in an average size home would cost thousands of dollars. so Most people will stick with incandescent or CFL bulbs for now

>>3594143

"for constant lighting" maybe ....

>effectiveness, over efficiency
medical
military
2 off hand
>average intelligence
probably

>ctrl+f
>"efficacy"
>0 of 0

Good god /sci/...

>>3594143
>most efficient

There are an infinite number of most efficient solutions until you define what things you want to minimize the use of. But I can tell you right now that the most sensible one is money, so if your solution costs more to light a home, and people using the grid do pay their full long run average cost, it's less efficient regardless of what any ecofaggot has to say about it.

OP reminds me of that south park episode about hybrid cars.

>>3594169

I'm gonna have to go quantum on this one ..

Right thing would be : no war, eternal life. Or perhaps some futuristic medical solution.

The most effective one is also the most efficient option.

You have to base it on your real goal.

Often the most effective solution is also the most efficient one.

You need to choose your goals and quantify your variables first.

Get it working, then make it efficient.

Pre-emptive optimization is bad.

Effectiveness should factor in efficiency, your entire reasoning process is flawed.

So yes, an average person would choose effectiveness over efficiency, an average person might also choose efficiency over effectiveness, neither are likely to be able to think properly.

pic related, fuck you hipsters

>>3594182

Interesting notion.

Any answer to that question would be speculation psychology pseudoscience.

>implying CFLs can't be both effective and efficient

>>3594203

Your right, because if efficiency would factor in effectiveness, it wouldn't be effectiveness at all. Hipsters are hipsters, because they're faggots.

>>3594210

Indeed. They are effective at mercury and efficient at ultraviolet.

>>3594210

Implying : xenon, halogen and fibre lights...best combo ever made

The two concepts, efficiency and effectiveness, are fundamentally linked. In many ways, they are two aspects of the same question: How well does a given invention perform the task for which it was designed?

If the objective is to provide readily available light, a lightbulb that uses less energy can only be considered more efficient if it provides the same level of light with the same speed as its more energy demanding predecessor.

>>3594250

Would you call a lightbulb of the two --same energy consuming-- which is faster, more efficient, or more effective?

>>3594250

Not just light level; quality of light is also important.

eg: White LEDs are energy efficient for overall photon count, but there are holes in their emission spectra which results in poorer color rendition & contrast than an equivalent quantity of blackbody radiation. Generally they are inefficient at covering red and cyan areas of the spectrum.

>>3594313

Probably because of a wavelength of 650 nm for LED, and of 390-750 nm for black body, which in practical purposes /black body/ does not emit photon in the visible range.

captcha : total usefun

>>3594393
>in practical purposes /black body/ does not emit photon in the visible range

>>3594419
>>3594419

My bad, I totally wrote that --photon--

>>meaning that for most practical purposes, such a black body does not emit in the visible range.

>>3593944
>>3593947
>>3593958
>>3593965
>>3593980
>>3593990
>>3593997
>>3594011
>>3594024
>>3594044
>>3594057
>>3594102
>>3594109
>>3594143
>>3594169
>>3594177
>>3594184
>>3594313
>>3594419

lol