It might make more sense to use the hydrogen to produce methane, which is considerably easier to store and manage.

While desalination is a great use of excess power, this is not an easy thing to do because the places where the water is needed are inland. Obviously it doesn't make sense to pump desalinated water 180 miles uphill from the Gulf of California to Phoenix, what you really want to do is to use desalinated water at the places nearer the coast so they can stop relying on the river water that comes from the mountain west, so the southwest can use more of it (and so the mountain west can keep more of it for our own use). But while you could get some benefit from getting the coastal cities using desalinated water, their use actually isn't that significant. The bulk of the water goes to California farmlands, and those are in a belt 70-100 miles from the coasts, and there are mountains in between. Not terribly tall ones, but enough to make pumping the water challenging.

None of this means what you say isn't a good idea, but it does mean that a lot of infrastructure has to be built to make it work. Big coastal desalination plants, big pipelines from those plants, fed by big pumps, and either additional reservoirs or perhaps large tanks in the mountains to buffer the water supply -- though only after peak supply rises to the point that it exceeds demand. Heh. That's exactly the same situation as with intermittent, renewable power, just shifted to water. Water is a lot easier to store, of course, but you still have to build the infrastructure to store it.

So, this is a good idea, but it's an idea that will take years, probably a decade, to realize... and we have excess power now. Of course, starting by tackling the easier problem of using desalinated water in the coastal cities while the infrastructure is built out and scaled up makes sense.

Yep. This, like many problems associated with regulated utilities, is one where the right answer is also pretty simple: Just make the prices reflect the costs, then let the market sort it out. But the "just" in that statement belies the political challenges of making such changes.

You assume. You should consider that people with an inside view who see what data is actually collected, how it's secured and managed and how it's used, may have a very different perspective on that. I mean, without an internal view you understandably have to assume the worst, but they (we) don't.

Speaking for myself, I very few concerns about Google's privacy violations today. But with respect to the future, you and I are in the same boat, neither of us can know what a future version of the company might do. And on that score I suspect you and I would find ourselves in strong agreement on the potential for serious harm. Where we might differ again is that I see the work being done to limit Google's access to user data so I'm cautiously optimistic that before all vestiges of the old corporate culture are lost and the bean counters take over completely, Google will largely have ceased collecting and using data for advertising and what remains will be easy to limit and make safe.

So many posts are clearly marketing campaigns, not sure that AI is needed to make it much worse.

Re: your subject "Not true", the data doesn't lie. The fact that you're an outlier doesn't change the situation.

Me too, though usually it's audiobooks for fiction and certain types of non-fiction. Being able to "read" a book while mowing the lawn, or whatever, has made chores far less annoying and opened up big blocks of time for reading.

I meant that the wider market. Even if Apple's strategy isn't going to be profitable, a subset of Meta's efforts can be (the devices can be profitable, but they spent way too much money on certain projects that will not pan out).

Apple may make a return to the market with an amended product that fit the business case.

There's a market, it's viable, but it's not set the world on fire. Apple's device aimed for a market that seemingly wasn't there (too expensive particularly for an unproven ecosystem). But other devices have done well enough to have a business justification.

KDE has been in Fedora a while, a lot of Fedora gets dropped on the way to RHEL. Fedora 34 would become RHEL9, and dropped KDE on the way.

I suppose I don't know the particulars of this protest, but *most* protests I see aren't standing up for Hamas but pointing out the broader treatment of Palestinians, whether it's as collateral damage in Gaza or continuing behavior in the West Bank, which is widely recognized as wrong by the UN/ICC/EU/various nations.

Broadly speaking, the muslims I have known personally are good folk. Extremists under any religious cover misbehave similar, though admittedly some Islamic extremists have more formally recognized power than is typical, but as it stands none of this is in evidence in the West Bank. Gaza may be more tricky by virtue Hamas, but most major powers have expressed a belief that Israel could have been more surgical but are instead inflicted way more collateral damage than should be acceptable.

Sure, and they should expect that they're putting their jobs on the line for their cause. Without that risk, their protest isn't particularly meaningful. If they were to "win" by getting Google to cancel the contract, they'd actually have little effect because Google is almost certainly right that this contract has little to no effect on the war.

Generating headlines by getting fired from their $500k/year jobs is the most effective thing these Google employees can do for their cause. So, good for them, they succeeded!

If they expect Google's decision to generate significant public or internal backlash, though, I think they'll be disappointed.

apartheid:
  a policy or system of segregation or discrimination on grounds of race.

Seems like walling off Palestinians would be consistent. Also, you have the West Bank situation, which the ICC/UN, France, UK, EU, and US have all described as a war crime (US temporarily said it wasn't, but switched back in February). In Gaza the objection is the disproportionate response, even though the settlements did stop, but the West Bank still suffers from the settlements and associated forced transfer of property away from Palestinians.

Just because they should realistically expect to put their job at risk doesn't mean they did the "wrong thing". The "disturb the peace" line as a reaction to the concept of protest is a bit disconcerting.

Now if they were being obnoxious in the workspace chanting about injustice against palestine in some totally unrelated venue (e.g. if Google did zero business with Israeli government), I could see scoffing at the effort as noisy and disruptive to no end.

However, they are directly protesting their own companies behavior. Disruptively protesting in the workplace is pretty much exactly what their cause demands in this scenario.

I have grown tired of "there's no wrong way to protest" being spouted when people do incredibly stupid, unjust, or self-harm stuff in the name of "protest", but here it's supremely on point. Then I still see people with "protest somewhere quietly that no one has to hear", which closes off *any* form of protest and demands deference to some folks.

It's a similar concept to Alternative Minimum Taxes [*], which you probably haven't experienced with your own taxes. Basically, deductions that corporations can normally claim are disallowed and then their taxes are calculated at the lower rate. If the result is more than they would pay with the higher rate and broader set of deductions, then they have to pay it rather rather than the normally-calculated amount. So it doesn't apply to all corporations, or maybe even most, but it extracts additional revenue from those that would otherwise be successful at using extensive deductions and credits (also known as "loopholes") to reduce their tax liability.

In some cases they're already committed to the behavior and won't be able to avoid the tax. But, yeah, in many cases this tax may deter the behavior rather than raise revenue. The CBO's projections try to take that into account when projecting the revenue impacts, of course. But I think the main goal of this part of the IRA is to appease populists on both sides who think stock buybacks are bad, because they don't understand how publicly-traded corporations work.

The grants will also be paid out over time, so it's more like spending money in the future that will be raised in the future.

Yeah, it's probably inflation-neutral. The IRA does contain some inflation-reducing provisions in specific areas, notably healthcare, but it's mostly revenue-neutral and inflation-neutral. I suppose you can say it's inflation-reducing compared to its previous incarnation, the Build Back Better bill, which if enacted would have increased the deficit and potentially stoked inflation.

[*] Note that AMT is slightly different in that for most taxpayers AMT is actually calculated at a higher tax rate, in addition to disallowing a lot of deductions. But AMT also allows a much larger standard deduction (with a phaseout based on income).