"I await their decision on EV producers and the huge quantity of dangerous particulates EV's spew into the atmosphere."

The only particulates that EVs spew into the atmosphere are tire dust, and not much more than other vehicles - or if LRR tires are used, less than most.

If you mean during production, or pollution from generating power to charge the vehicle, even if charged purely with coal the lifecycle emissions are lower by the time an EV hits 70k miles.

TL;DR: Bullshit.

Personally I'd like a plug-in hybrid (PIH), and hope those are perfected soon. It gives one more fuel options. For normal commuting I could plug in at night to charge and never have to visit a gas station, yet have gasoline as an option for longer trips or blackouts.

I expect more pandemics, civil wars, Yellowstone eruptions, petulant Presidents, and/or zombie apocalypses. PIH's are a better fit for chaos.

A shutdown would cause a political stir in the US because it's a popular app.

But this shut-down threat may be a ploy to scare USA regulators etc. If the algorithms were really that unique, they'd patent them to protect them, and then agree to license them to the split-off as part of the settlement as long as the split-off doesn't use or sell them for other apps.

If they are relying on trade-secrecy instead of patents to protect their ideas, they are probably already swiped via mole employees, and/or deemed obvious by others.

Inflation isn't a deterrent to savings, it just means you have to put your savings somewhere that it also does work, i.e. invested in something. Having a non-zero inflation rate encourages investment, which encourages economic growth. This is good. But it's not the main reason we need constant inflation.

The reason we need constant inflation is because deflation is extremely harmful; it causes debts to grow which can make people and businesses insolvent. The Fed has a 2% inflation target because low inflation rates are manageable and because 2% is high enough that a decrease still won't go negative.

Oh noes politicians might have the power to prevent people from profiting from polluting our nation and planet unnecessarily, HOW TERRIBLE.

They ruled that how he was doing it was unconstitutional, not doing it at all. Got any facts to work with, or only things you don't understand and therefore shouldn't be pointing around?

In general, documents are considered hearsay and are inadmissible. There are exceptions to the hearsay rule that allow them to be introduced, for example public records that are made in the normal course of business, but police reports are explicitly and specifically excluded from those exceptions. It might be possible to introduce a police report as evidence if the officer who wrote it is present to testify to its authenticity and accuracy, and to be cross-examined about its contents, but if the officer is there it's easier to avoid the hearsay question entirely by just having the officer testify.

Note that this applies not just to written police reports but also to bodycam footage. You still need someone to testify that the footage is authentic and accurate, and available to be cross-examined about it. With bodycam footage I suppose that could be either the officer or a technician responsible for collecting and archiving the footage.

In the case of an AI-generated summary of the footage, if the officer checked and edited the output I think it would be exactly the same as the officer's self-written report. If the officer didn't check and edit the output, then it would be a mechanical transformation of the bodycam footage and you'd need someone to testify to the accuracy of that transformation, as well as the authenticity of the footage. I don't think anyone could honestly testify that the transformation is guaranteed to be correct and accurate. In any case, though, the defense could always just review the footage to point out any inaccuracies in the summary. Most likely the summary would be ignored completely and the bodycam footage would be used directly, after appropriate testimony about its authenticity.

Except that wasn't an example of overreach. Seasonal wetlands are still wetlands. Polluting them still affects both aquifers and the migratory waterfowl which use them.

Got any actual examples, not just more shitting on everything you don't care about, like other people?

Nobody with a brain believes in that shit anyway. How many examples do you want of the government shutting down businesses on bullshit pretexts? Or propping them up?

"TikTok owner ByteDance would prefer shutting down its loss-making app rather than sell it"

Yes, that's because its purpose is not profit, as it's a PsyOp. If the goal were profit, they would prefer to sell it. If they sell it, there is a risk that documents which prove its purpose will be transferred, and blow the whole operation even worse than being shut down.

"It's probably because you're asserting that the mod down process validates your "facts"."

If you want to claim what I'm saying isn't factual, the onus is on you to provide some counter evidence, or at minimum, counter arguments. When people mod down an opinion because they don't agree with it they have surrendered the point.

When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

I'll bet you are the life of the party, amiright?

Personally, I'd rather stay young at heart and mind....especially when the body starts to fail a bit.

Can you cite some examples of overreach besides vague recollections?

Sackett vs EPA is the one I was thinking of...easy to google my friend.

And I found one from NPR to satisfy your liberal bent...

;)

This ruling arrowed the scope of the Clean Water Act and the agency's power to regulate waterways and wetlands.

There have been others, this is setting precedent in a number of unrelated cases of citizens vs govt agency overreach.

A number of pending 2A cases going before SCOTUS use this and other rulings to fight against the ATF in their recent rulings...some of which turn millions of every day citizens into felons overnight for buying weapons that the ATF expressly stated for years (in writing) that it was legal to buy and own....pistol braces for one, and even the bump stock case.

I'll leave those for you to google.

here does it state anything will be shutdown? This about cleaning up their act which might cut into the constant record quarterly profits.

Well, to start with, it is expressly mentioned in the title of this thread:

"New Rule Compels US Coal-Fired Power Plants To Capture Emissions - or Shut Down"

EVs are perfectly fine for daily commutes within a 120 mile round trip (just pulled that number out of my ass with 1 hour each way @ 60mph) as long as you can charge at home over night. The entire problem for those potential customers is PRICE PRICE PRICE.

Everyone seems to be missing a BIG factor that isn't price.

It's the fact that a LARGE, very significant number of people do not live in single family dwellings they own with off street parking where they can "charge overnight"....

Right now as it stands, they are not interested in EVs either as that refueling is VERY inconvenient.