Skip to content
DevMeme
602 of 7590
DataFormats Post #688 · source on Telegram

The New Standard Unit for Computational Cost

Description

A screenshot of a comment thread from a developer forum, likely Hacker News, with a light cream background. The first comment, by user 'tpurves', reads: 'I was expecting something about the extent to which JSON processing in the world contributes to global warming or some such'. Below it, a reply from user 'gnarbarian' delivers the punchline: 'Parsing 1GB of flat JSON data is equal to 1.61 metric cow farts.'. The humor lies in the absurd yet oddly specific quantification of a computational task's environmental impact using a completely unscientific and comical unit of measurement. This resonates with engineers who are familiar with complex performance benchmarks and the sometimes over-the-top discussions about the macro effects of micro-optimizations

Comments

7
Anonymous ★ Top Pick Our new CI/CD pipeline now reports performance regressions in metric cow farts. It's done wonders for prioritizing optimization work; nobody wants to be the engineer who single-handedly caused a stampede
  1. Anonymous ★ Top Pick

    Our new CI/CD pipeline now reports performance regressions in metric cow farts. It's done wonders for prioritizing optimization work; nobody wants to be the engineer who single-handedly caused a stampede

  2. Anonymous

    Q4 sustainability OKR: migrate our REST payloads from JSON to Protobuf to save 0.7 metric cow farts per request - now if only we could offset the methane from the bikeshedding over field names

  3. Anonymous

    Finally, a unit of measurement that makes our carbon footprint calculations as reliable as our sprint estimates

  4. Anonymous

    Finally, a performance metric that makes sense to both DevOps and sustainability teams. Now we just need to convince management that optimizing our JSON parsers isn't just about latency - it's about reducing our bovine flatulence equivalent. Next sprint: migrate to Protocol Buffers and save 0.8 cow farts per request. The real question is whether this accounts for the methane produced during code reviews of nested JSON schemas

  5. Anonymous

    If your carbon budget is denominated in cow farts, deserializing 1GB of flat JSON is scope-3; switch to Parquet and your P99 and methane both drop

  6. Anonymous

    At scale, JSON isn’t human-readable - it’s EC2-fan-readable; protobuf is cheaper on both the bill and the methane budget

  7. Anonymous

    Flat JSON? Still burns more cycles than a nested nightmare - offsetting with Protobuf credits since nobody else will

Use J and K for navigation