[jibal]

Every mention of efficiency is about the chemical process, not about vision as such.

> anaerobic glycolysis that is significantly less efficient than oxygen-powered metabolism

> Oxygen molecules make energy production in cells extremely efficient.

> the presence of oxygen makes energy extraction from a single glucose molecule 15 times as efficient, and sometimes more.

> This energetic ability is powered by an inefficient metabolism.

> This suggested that the strange structure wasn’t bringing oxygen into the bird’s retina; rather, it was helping to pump glucose in, thereby enabling the less efficient anaerobic process.

[jdthedisciple]

You cannot ignore the tradeoffs and the output produced:

> Though we normally can’t perceive them, these vessels always occlude a portion of what we see, and for an important reason.

Efficiency is input / output, not just input.

15x input / 15x output is just as efficient as 1x input / 1x output.

[jibal]

You complained about the article's talk about "inefficiency" -- you quoted it. But as I noted, THEIR mention of efficiency/inefficiency was ALWAYS about the chemical process, not about efficiency of vision. Now you're totally moving the goalposts. I don't understand why you're playing such an obviously absurd game but I will leave you to it.

[jdthedisciple]

?? why the nastiness?

I'm not moving goalposts. My 2nd comment just adds detail, which i hoped the reader would manage to infer based on my 1st one. That's all.

My point is it's like saying a car is more inefficient than a bicycle because it uses (more) fuel... totally ignoring that it also gets you much further and that too much faster.

Whereas a valid, to me, criticism would be that a particular car is less efficient than another car bc it burns more gas, when both do about as good a job.