It doesnt have to be behaviour of the consumer. It can mean that the value proposition of application development can move to more less-efficient programs. e.g. we have more and more memory in computers so developers often say "meh, memory is cheap" when developing Electron apps that take hundreds of GB. This can definitely result in "meh, CPUs are efficient" (even if it's a non-sequitor in this case).

Fair point. We've definitely seen that trend happen where software will often be written to take advantage of the resources available rather than written to be efficient. Not just in recent times with Electron but throughout the evolution of GUI-driven operating systems (eg compositing desktops, themeing, pre-compositing animations, etc).

The gaming industry demonstrates this the most clearly but it's definitely present in general purpose computing as well. eg when Windows XP was first released (pre-service packs) it required twice the hardware specifications of Windows 2000 yet offered little functional difference (read: actual real world stuff that could be done on it) aside themeing.

Thankfully that trend with Windows has reversed somewhat but it's still ever-present with desktop software and their movement towards using web-based technologies.

> The gaming industry demonstrates this the most clearly

I think the gaming industry actually also demonstrates the opposite the most clearly.

I'm often blown away by how efficient some games are, and how well they take advantage of advances in hardware.

I look at something like World of Warcraft, a 14 year old game that has trouble running on my desktop computer despite its graphics being... limited to say the least. And then I look at Breath of the Wild. A patently stunning game.

And then I remember which one of the two is a mobile game.

light bulbs are hard to jevon, since an LED on all day still uses less energy than an incadescent that you turn off when you don't need it.

compute is EASY to jevon =)

On the contrary - the introduction of efficient LEDs has led to insane stuff like decorative building facade illumination which nobody would think of doing with incandescents, just because of replacement effort and energy usage. But with cheap LEDs the operating costs drop to the point where such an application becomes viable, and we get a new source of demand (and light pollution)

You're begging the question, which is not adding to the discussion.

Saying efficiency leads to increased usage is not the same thing as saying increased usage balances efficiency 100%.

It reminds me of people who argued that airbags and ABS lead to people taking more risk when driving. That may be a real effect, but nevertheless, casualties have declined.