It was only a theoretical construct for me as well. I only meant to convey that further adding to the list of things affecting the free market moves it further away from the core concept of a free market and not closer.

In my original message I mentioned Tesla as a directly comparative example for EV. At the point where you joined the conversation, I had already mentioned they're not the only company receiving subsidies. Specifically, " It's not a situation unique to them."

I never said they should, or shouldn't, be allowed to enter the US market... subsidized or not. In fact, my very first sentence specifically said I wasn't expressing a stance on it. The only point I made is that the free market isn't operating as a proper free market due to subsidies, and that adding yet another subsidized player wouldn't suddenly fix it.

Are you going to ignore the fact that I mentioned it happens with US auto makers as well?

BYD is subsidized. They're far from the only company that is. I don't CARE that they are. I never said they were subsidized into beating domestic manufacturers. My point was of there not actually being a true free market in general because of subsidies in general.

I never said it was part of the production price calculation. However, it will absolutely factor into what pricing would be needed for it to be viable to maintain or grow the business. Those operating expenses have to be paid somehow.

You say that like R&D doesn't affect the cost. However, the point is that they are subsidized. And to be clear, I'm counting indirect subsidies. It's not a situation unique to them. I'm not saying it's a problem that they are. I'm merely pointing out that when subsidies are involved it's not as free of a market.

I'm not going to argue about the merit of allowing BYD or not. This is only about free market economics. BYD is heavily subsidized, and their entry in the market would skew any possible free market economics. That said, it isn't like Tesla didn't directly or indirectly receive subsidies. It might look closer to a free market if everyone has their thumb on the scale, but it wouldn't be.

The link in the summary to the CAFE standards specifically mentions it includes light trucks.

Their question was "What choice do they realistically have?" The key word is realistically. Yes, there is a choice. There just isn't a viable reason to say no.

According the The Guardian they do that much already. However, it's being said to not be enough in the face of the rest of the conversation.

The study is linked in the summary, and does explain their method. I know it's normal not to read the summary, let alone the article, but c'mon.

I think maybe you don't actually know what they're saying they did. They tested eye fixation of subjects on pictures of people. They used that to extrapolate what portions of the photos were actually looked at. They ran the viewed portions through facial recognition software to score how reliably the software can match based upon what the subjects looked at. The extrapolated images, without the scoring from the software, paints enough of a picture for the general audience. Super-recognizers just do a better job at looking at the relevant parts of the face.

I mean, everyone is going to have their own opinion. I'm not a fan of the song, or really the genre, but it doesn't seem better/worse than the majority of the newer music being put out. It does sound artificial, but even that isn't unheard of with real artists these days.

Steam does not fit the dictionary definition of monopoly, or the US legal definition, at this time. Feel free to consider them a monopoly, but by definition they're not.

I fail to see what definition, under Webster's, that you refer to. The closest would be the first definition, but that is basically the definition used by US courts as I described.