I&#x27;m not moved by that post..  Didn&#x27;t you know Google wasted $100M by investing in D-Wave which has been proven to be no faster than a laptop?<p>Anyway, there&#x27;s nothing about thermodynamic limitations in the section about the TV.  The author is making several exaggerated statements that are easily refuted to make the TV suddenly possible... Let&#x27;s focus on the wasted energy (240W or a dozen light bulbs!) to make the point:<p>* Assume a 48&quot; LED[1] that uses 31W and suddenly you&#x27;re only wasting 120W.<p>* His 80% loss figure is a holdover from his calculations about the phone -- cut this in half and you&#x27;re at 60W of waste heat. (You should be able to achieve a nearly perfect perpendicular &#x27;connection&#x27; between transmitter&#x2F;receiver for a fixed TV).<p>So far, we&#x27;re delivering 30W of power and wasting 60W as heat -- not ideal<p>* If you plan for a worst-case of 8-hrs straight of watching TV and plan on a battery backup, you could get away with delivering 10W to the TV and only wasting 20W as heat which is eminently reasonable.<p>The &quot;physically impossible&quot; claims are greatly overstated (for non-phone charging use cases).<p>[1] - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.energystar.gov&#x2F;index.cfm?c=most_efficient.me_tvs_35to50_inches" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.energystar.gov&#x2F;index.cfm?c=most_efficient.me_tvs...</a>