Destroying middle class has predictable consequence of tanking birth rate. News at 11.

"We must have constant inflation or people might, you know, save!"

Then... basics cost (a lot) more and mid- to low-tier wages don't even come close to keeping up

Brutal housing, education, medical, food, vehicle, and fuel costs, crushing taxes on the lower tier workers... gee, sounds like a great circumstance to bring some ever-more-expensive rug rats into.

The "American Dream" is deader than Trump's diaper contents for a large swath of those of an age to be pumping out crotch goblins. But hey: The stock market is doing Great!

Or perhaps it's just that no one wants to hump someone with their pants falling off their butt — or otherwise dressing like a refugee.

Obligatory: get off my lawn.

It's going to use a RTG.

One of the high technology parts of the French TGV trains is that they are capable of running on old track at non-TGV speeds. BrightLine really should do the same, the train slows down a lot, but does continue on to Union Station after stopping at Rancho Cucamunga. There should not be a need to change trains.

Yep. Thus helping the blue states to maintain their dominance in technology work.

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.

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.

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.

I do think the techie / scifi sensibility plays a lot into all this. But the cosmos doesn't owe anything to the fantasies of scifi authors (or the linguistic particulars that make one tech sound more like "the future" than another one, like batteries).

Information tech played out much differently than 20c scifi pictured it. Same for transportation (incl. space flight and cars).

..when we started seeing how lithium-ion powered cars were performing vs fuel cell vehicles, and doing the math on their relative efficiency.

As for Toyota, I think their fallout with A123 Systems (re: the latter's battery patent) defined not just Toyota's but the Japanese attitude in general toward BEVs. There seemed to be a reckoning over there that they just weren't going to be able to compete with the US or China on battery tech. I even think this pro-H2/anti-battery mood contributed toward the ouster of Nissan's CEO, Carlos Ghosn, who brought the Leaf BEV to market.

As someone who has long championed BEVs as superior, I feel somewhat vindicated in reading about Toyota's FCEV flop, especially when people cite long refueling times (a weakness of BEVs). But I will also say that I thought BEV "fast charge" was a dead end and that the future would be swap-able battery packs allowing "re-fueling" in just a few minutes. I still think that makes sense for the future, and I can see how car mfgs would start supporting swap-able "booster" packs which could eventually lead to cars that use 100% swap-able batteries. Otherwise, the Chinese model for battery swap might also take hold. Finally, I think swap-able batteries call for an industry 'surplus' of battery stock that would be queued for re-charging at optimal time-of-day at refueling stations... this would act as a big enabler for intermittent renewable energy (over and above what V2G provides) as consumers would feel less pressure to plan the charging of their cars at certain times of day (and less pressure to find charge points and keep their cars attached to the grid).

The machine I had was a HeathKit H19. This had it's own OS called HDOS. Not sure what the quality of that was or how it compared to CP/M. However the hardware also had ROM mapped to the first 2K or so (to run the program controlling the front panel display) which made it incompatible with CP/M. I somewhat remember it was already clear that all the good software was only for CP/M and I had the wrong machine and HeathKit screwed up. Anybody else remember these, have any comments on them? It does sound like creating HDOS was not a trivial amout of work, was anything interesting lost with it?

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).