A) Waves are from wind, not the moon.
B) Even with tidal energy you have no sense of proportion as to the scale of the energies involved.
C) The effect would have been opposite what you state.

The moon will slingshot away as is, were we to draw enough energy (impossible), this would keep it, but it would also slow the earth's rotation so then our days would be a month long and we'd be toast.

That fact won't stop the people who want to spew uninformed rhetoric, sadly.

There are a number of math problems here. First AC (Alternating Current not Air Conditioner :-) watts are not DC watts. They are DC
watts over (the square root of two.) So when converting from a DC value like BTU/hr you need to factor that in. Assuming a power
factor of 1, the actual equivalent DC watts of the air conditioner is about 2.5K (8500ish BTU), and will actually be less because the power factor will
be less than 1 for the type of motors used in an air conditioner.

Secondly Heat != electricity unless you are using a resistive device. You don't compare them kWH to kWH, there's a
COP involved though usually a SEER is used when talking HVAC. This COP will be well over 1, as you can move way more than 1kWH of heat with 1kWH of electricity; often several times more, but it depends on the temperatures involved. If you have a heat ballast like a ground source loop attached to a heat pump that boosts the COP dramatically.

The solar water heating vendors spent decades charging "what the market would bear" instead of competitively expanding/economizing. At this rate a heat pump and a solar panel may economically pass them up before they can.

Not so much. There are location-specific seasonal variations but it is more predictable and has a more reliable baseline.

Both wave and off-shore wind suffer greatly from the transmission problem, but with off-shore wind, they get to use technology that has already been developed because it also works on land. Wave doesn't get that leg up, and still has to deal with transmission expenses.

There are some actual advatantages to the "large HAWT" design and also some amount of technological lock-in in the market. Actually that's an illustrative example to those expecting wave power to bootstrap faster than it is.

Anyway the primary advantage to large turbines are the higher the altitude of the blade at the top, the stronger and more consistent the winds are up there.

Wave energy is actually known as one of the less intermittent renewable resources. There is seasonal variation, but at certain sites there are pretty much always waves and it can be used as a baseline power source. The only things more reliable are tidal and geothermal.

Doesn't actually have to be based on the mooring. Damper mechanisms may be deployed to reduce wave shock. Dampers dissipate energy. They are essentially generators that do something useless with the resulting energy, like convert it to heat. Which is why the MIT kids evaluated regenerative shocks for cars and nobody that knew their ass from their elbow accused them of trying to make a perpetual motion machine.

It was application of modern engineering to the old idea, to attempt to make it economicaly feasible. Nobody ever claied it was "new science" because that would have been ridiculous.

...Or documentation written by native and/or skilled writers of the language it is written in, capable of understanding the product at a surface level, formulating rationally structured topics, and anticipating the needs of the target audience. But the pendulum is still swinging away from that AFAICT. Instead we get random web videos that amount to a show-and-tell of "what I learned to do last week."

Prefabricated boards with attached motors, sensors, and often WiFi? Rip that out for robot guts. Screw the Raspberry Pis, arduinos, and whatnot.

Unless you have a use for the waste heat, you're better off with systems with better performance-per-watt. These are usually low wattage chips, but they can't do much math-wise.

You could do that too, but if the SHA3 is not deemed sufficient protection, then we are
screwed anyway. Embedded devices might choose to ignore the SHA2 to save on
compute resources.

Well, if x509 has simply allowed for multiple signatures, we could just put both SHA2 and SHA3 signatures on the certs, and consumers of the certs could move towards supporting SHA3 as their security requirements dictate, ignoring the SHA2 signatures when they have a SHA3 signature available to them.

But as with everything PKI related, the people making the calls have some blind spots when it comes to making things forward compatible or even particularly maintainable. It's as if they've never had to a day of PKI gruntwork in their life.

Well
you
can
go buy
a
500x65000
resolution
monitor
then.