It's not a stupid question. The problem is twofold: Any place that's nearby is already too expensive to make the move worth it; and any place that's cheap enough to be worth it lacks either the coastal climate or proximity to civilization, or both. Or worse (or better, depending on your perspective), it's a place where the Coastal Commission won't let you build anyway.
So, in practice, you're asking "Why doesn't Google just pack up and move to Nevada or Kansas City?" Such a move would probably be highly disruptive to business (probably at least two months of lost productivity (even if you pay relocation consultants to handle everything) for all employees being moved, and you're talking about moving substantially all employees).
You could start by estimating the time cost correctly. You're assuming that the time required to select the right monitor is zero, that the time required to understand the various connection standards is zero, etc., etc., etc. The only cost you're counting is the act of unboxing and plugging it in.
Maybe you and I keep track of this stuff professionally or as a hobby, but most "grandmothers" don't. Quick: What's the best lock-in amplifier for rejecting mains interference. What? You don't know what dynamic reserve means? Jeez, you're such a dummy.
Think about how you would go about buying a piece of technical equipment outside your domain of expertise. That's what a "grandmother" is doing when he/she is buying a monitor.
The Turbo Boost clock speed is only around 15% lower than the other iMacs, though (2.7 GHz vs 3.2 GHz). It looks like the same processor as the MacBook Air. The bigger problem is probably memory--only 8GB, soldered to the board, and no option for more, even at time of purchase. Could be worse, though. With Mavericks, 8GB is about the minimum configuration for "normal people" tasks.
I'd believe that, but your MBA also has an SSD, which partially masks the effect of swapping out pages. True, SSD is an option for the new iMac, but it's not included in the base price.
> FCs don't operate via the carnot cycle so in theory can be 90+% efficient in electricity generation.
Sorry, this is wrong.
FCs are not heat engines, so the thermodynamic limitations of heat engines are not relevant to fuel cells. That said, thermodynamic limitations do set an upper bound on the efficiency of fuel cells. For hydrogen fuel cells, the theoretical upper bound is 83% [1]. That's for just the process of turning hydrogen into electricity, and that does not include the process for producing hydrogen in the first place. "90+%" efficiency is strictly impossible in theory or practice.
> i think the carnot efficiency maxes out somwhere 40-50% so no matter what you do (and we've been doing this for 100 years now)
It must be noted that 50% thermal efficiency is a practical upper bound for a real electrical power plant, not a theoretical one. Some combined-cycle gas turbines do exceed 50% efficiency under some operating conditions.
I doubt the feedback loop would be very severe, simply because most tuition is not used to pay for faculty. Instead, most goes to the ever-increasing army of administrators whose actual responsibilities are harder and harder to pin down. The more likely scenario is that colleges would be required to trim the fat.
HNers tend to be technical people who like numbers. It's my experience that such people tend to dislike what might be politely called 'bovine excrement.' The lack of numbers[1] is, I think, triggering some members' "BS meters." In my field (physics), it's common to be challenged to demonstrate how you know something (or why you think something is true). It's a mark of a good scientist/engineer that they can back up their claims (which often involves numbers).
[1] For example, as others have pointed out, the story claims to refute the argument that solar roadways will cost 6e13 dollars... but when you actually read the counter-argument, it basically says "We don't know how much it will cost, it just won't be that particular number."
> His cost argument doesn't make any sense. He is comparing some mythical 12x12' $10k panels to the same size of asphalt and is magically breaking even.
That stuck out at me as well. He's sort of saying "IF we could make these things for $10k per 144 sq ft section, then it would be cost competitive with asphalt." But then he completely punts on the question of how much it's likely to cost. It's not difficult to make some order of magnitude estimates for the cost of raw materials and the omission of such an estimate (even if just to show that the $10k per 144 sq ft goal is plausible) is, well... odd.
I think the part most people are having trouble with is not what is contained in your first paragraph, but how the legislature/executive goes from there to "Every manufacturer, including those that never set up franchise agreements, must sell through a dealership." The especially galling part of the New Jersey kerfuffle is that Tesla was defined to be a "franchisor" despite the fact that they have never entered into a franchise agreement!
So, in practice, you're asking "Why doesn't Google just pack up and move to Nevada or Kansas City?" Such a move would probably be highly disruptive to business (probably at least two months of lost productivity (even if you pay relocation consultants to handle everything) for all employees being moved, and you're talking about moving substantially all employees).