How the **** am I supposed to look into the details of how the contract will be enforced?? I can look an see prior contracts that were evaded by one means or another, several involving nuclear power plants, but that doesn't say about this one. But I would STRONGLY prefer supporting something with a lower down-side, like solar + wind plus some storage mechanism.

The one proposal I saw that I though looked interesting involved closed cycle in a deep well...about as deep as an oil well. Just about anywhere has hot rocks if you go that deep. The question is "Is there a good enough flow of heat for this to continue being useful?". I didn't see an answer to that, so that may still be site specific. Iceland has proven that can make it work when an active volcano is available, and it should work in Yellowstone. But that's shallow depth-site-specific. Can they get it deep enough to work most places? That, IIUC, is currently unknown. Will it be cheap enough to be worthwhile? I think that's also unknown.

The more reasonable reaction is to doubt that he will do as he says. I doubt that he'll do it, even with strings attached. If he actually does it (or legally commits to doing it), that's the time to start looking for the trap.

Do you believe he will? Perhaps in his will...which would, of course, be contested.

That's is you think the load will really be repaid. Past history does not cause me to be optimistic about this, though I haven't looked into the details or how the contract will be enforced. What happens if the company (which?) declares bankruptcy? What if it spins the asset/obligation off into a separate company that declares bankruptcy? It's happened before.

Also the batteries (or other storage). Solar isn't a good source for a large constant load without a LOT of storage. (It *might* still be a better choice, though. But I'd want a mix of solar and wind, and LOTS of storage.)
Too bad geothermal hasn't been well enough developed, but I don't believe it has been.

I'm not sure about the last couple of decades, but prior to that geothermal was usually really a research project. Yeah, it was expensive, but boondoggle is the wrong framing.

OTOH, some of the recent proposals look serious. I'm not in a position to judge them, but maybe they're good. However they are still limited in the sites where they can operate. I'm not sure the ones that involve fracking are both safe and reasonable. And the closed circulation one that I've seen described is really still experimental. Once they get the bugs worked out of it, it may be a really good system, usable in a lot of places. My guess, though, is give it another 20 years before major investment.

Yeah, the game servers are the problem with that proposal But I'd support the requirement (suggested above) that I they want to stop selling access they be required to open source the code...well, not just open-source, but also allow copying and modification...though they shouldn't be required to allow reselling of the server code or of access to a server running the code. If you want to set one up for your friends, you should be able to. Selling access, however, is a different category.

They're reasonable targets of investigation. It takes a lot more than that to be reasonable grounds for arrest. (Actually, the investigation should probably be pretty superficial unless it turns up something more actionable.)
P.S.: Most folks investigated should never even know that it happened. Exceptions are things like people who get security clearances...who should ALL be/have been investigated.

I think the nudity was her husband, not her.

Anyone convicted of a federal crime committed after November 1, 1987, has to complete at least 85% of their sentence, no parole allowed. Even in a halfway house, she will be subject to strict behavioral rules.

Please list some of the options. Raspberry Pi is the only one I ever hear about. (Of course, I don't go looking, but other good options should be advertised.)

The gift isn't completely free. Many people object to the costs imposed on them by the GPL. It prevents actions they want to take from being legal.

Fixing a typo in the above post:
wasn't proven, and now appears to be false.

That thing about "peeking on the chats of Mathematician" wasn't proven, and not appears to be false. They *could* have done that, but the proof they supplied used a slightly different method, so they probably didn't.

You comment would make picket lines illegal. This is something that I've heard claimed before, but I don't believe it's true.

OTOH, I agree that this appears to be useless grandstanding...though I suppose one could argue that it's utility is attracting public notice to the perceived problem.