Closed-loop water cooling? Heat pump cooling? Immersion cooling? A lot of things, really.

Companies use water for cooling when it is cheap and plentiful. When it isn't cheap or plentiful, there are plenty of alternatives that don't involve any ongoing water use.

Now if you ask how the construction company is going to build concrete floors without water... that's a different question. :-)

Err... people with wealth.

*sigh*

The law is not absurd. About a third of poor people are on metered cell phones for their home Internet connections. OTA TV is free. So consolidation of the OTA spectrum massively reduces access to a diverse panoply of voices for the poorest Americans.

The law wasn't written to protect the top 5% of Americans' ability to get news from a large number of sources. People with wealthy always had that ability.

And micro-motion of the eyes has all sorts of interesting superresolution side effects as well, helping compensate for optical defects.

That's an absurd comparison, because the Internet is not a limited spectrum. Your analogy is like arguing that there should be no regulation of airline mergers, because you can always walk or drive. They're not equivalent, they don't have equivalent costs or benefits, and from a legal perspective, they're not even the same market, or at least not meaningfully so.

Not at all. TV is still a finite spectrum. There will never be any more over-the-air TV channels than there are now, realistically speaking. Not everyone has high-speed Internet. 7% can't get it at all, at least by the FCC's definition.

Another 16% use their cell phones for Internet, which means their data is likely metered. This number balloons all the way up to 34% when you look at low-income Americans.

Those folks don't have access to "infinite channels".

You're right that over-the-air TV is dying because of competition, but it's also the only remaining lifeline for the poorest Americans. And that's exactly why the Republicans want more control. They've made manipulating poor people with below-average education into an art form, and being able to get more stations in more markets owned by large right-wing conglomerates means more people who can be easily manipulated.

That's why, believe it or not, right now, in the dying days of TV, those rules are more important than ever.

There's no evidence that consolidation will reduce cost of operation enough to be meaningful, but there is evidence that consolidation results in fewer voices reaching the poorest and often least-educated Americans. And this is unquestionably a bad thing.

Not necessarily. Pretty sure the older HW3 sensors from Tesla had considerably less instantaneous dynamic range than the human eye — probably not enough to be a problem most of the time, but still...

But more than that, cameras are notably worse than eyes, because they're in the wrong spot. A pair of eyes three feet back from the window sees the scene and focuses through whatever is hitting the glass, so unless it's a deluge, the contents of the glass are largely out of focus. With small sensors mounted close to the glass, you don't have the depth of field helping you in the same way. With cameras outside the car, it's even worse, and they get blinded constantly.

What cameras do have is quantity. Your eyes can look in only one direction at a time. Cameras can look in every direction. They can see that something is coming at you from the side or behind. They can see around corners better, if placed correctly. They can judge distance and speed of oncoming vehicles with mathematical precision that human brains can't consistently match.

They also don't get tired. They don't get drunk. They don't get distracted. They don't start burning when sweat gets in them. And so on.

These things can make camera-based cars considerably safer than human drivers, at least in theory, particularly once you consider that the average contains drunk drivers, tired drivers, distracted drivers, etc. And most driving accidents are not caused by loss of visibility, statistically speaking.

They're things you find in a place called a liiiiiii-brary.

In the worst case, they'll add interior walls (and maybe add some windows to the exterior walls), and resell it as office space, residential space, factory space, retail distribution space, or even a community library. After all, floors built to support racks of equipment should handle the weight and distribution of stacks of books without breaking a sweat.

So the construction might be overkill for what they eventually get used for, but it's not like a newly built, solid building isn't going to find a use. Maybe a quarter of the effort is wasted? Just guessing.

The main impact of prop 19 is making it possible for the elderly to not be forced to move to another state if they decide to downgrade to a smaller home. It likely has minimal impact on people's ability to move closer to their jobs, because it is limited to people 55 and older, so less than a quarter of California's workforce qualifies for transferring the cost basis to a new property.

More to the point, the people most likely to change jobs are younger workers, and none of them qualify.

As for Modoc to Beverly Hills, the difference in market value is added to your assessment. So if you bought a $50,000 home in the middle of nowhere that has appreciated to $300,000, and you trade up to a $3 million home, your new tax basis value is $2.75 million ($3 million minus $300k plus $50k). So it really doesn't make much difference in that case, practically speaking.

And that's when the corporate systems are configured to warn if you try to share something with or from the wrong account, and you shame the user into doing it right. Besides, this is usually only a problem for brand new users. Once you have a bunch of files uploaded to both accounts, you're not going to suddenly see the files from your personal account, and think, "Oh, this is where my work stuff goes".

It's only confusing if you have access to the same files from both accounts. And then, yeah, you'll get confused about which account is editing the file, but it's not as if it really matters in that situation.

And now, by suing a bunch of former employees, they're giving employees who might be thinking about jumping ship a reason to pause. Whether Apple wins or loses the lawsuit, Apple wins.

They know what they are doing. The UK government has never believed in privacy rights. They know they're doing a disservice to everyone. They don't care.

And the only rational answer is to cut them off. No more iCloud storage for anyone residing in the UK. And for anyone else, immediate denial of access from the minute you set foot in that country to the minute you leave. This is the only reasonable option.

And ultimately, this is the reason why Cloud storage shouldn't even exist. The minute you depend on someone else for storage, you can't completely 100% guarantee that your data is not in someone else's hands. If you store it on hardware you own, not built by the company that sold the backup software, then people will be able to verify that data is getting pushed to only a single destination, and if they started cheating and sending it to two different services, folks would likely notice. It's not perfect, but it makes back doors a lot harder to pull off without detection.

We need Time Machine for iOS, backing up over encrypted SMB to servers on our home network that we control. Fix that gap, and none of this matters anymore.

Not sure anyone is having to provide an incentive. While in small quantities, old models of Chromebook might cost as little as $200 on sale, chances are good that schools are spending more like $400 to $500 on average for their devices.

At just $600 for the Neo (the current educational price), the cost difference is minimal now. And if your teachers are already using Macs, that's one fewer platform to support. And if the hardware lasts longer (to be determined), then that could easily make up the remaining cost difference.

It really isn't complex. Google does it just fine. You have an account picker in the upper right corner, and you choose which account you're using to interact with that app. No big deal.

Having a mechanism to use one account for music and a different one for app stores? Now that's complex. That's adding special-casing for each app that needs to handle a separate account, instead of designing the auth system correctly to support multiple accounts to begin with. It's almost always easier to do it right than to add a bunch of special-case workarounds everywhere.

I also disagree with the claim that 99.9% of users only have one iCloud account — not because it isn't currently true, but because it is true only tautologically. If the system is designed so that no person can meaningfully use more than one account, then no one is ever going to create or attempt to use more than one account. What this means is that no businesses will ever use iCloud accounts for their internal messaging system, etc. Apple is basically shutting themselves out of the business ecosystem altogether by design.

They've designed the system in a way that makes what you're saying true, so of course it is true. But that doesn't mean that 99.9% of users would not *benefit* from it not being true. In an ideal world, iCloud would compete head-to-head with things like Office 365. They have the tech, but limiting it in ways that make it useless for business purposes means they aren't actually competing.