The problem with Euro-Socialism is that the bureaucrats fancy themselves as product designers and want to dicate product design through regulation. The problem being they have no real knowledge or skills beyond thinking they know best.

"and parents were asking the government to intervene"

How about being parents and putting rules in place with your kids? The government does not exist for parents to subcontract parenting to. Are parents afraid to be the bad person and want to just wanting to never have to say no to their kids? So, instead, they want government being the bad person?

It's a win for consumer choice, not for Trump. His policies regarding EVs are that consumers should be able to choose if they want one or an ICE vehicle. The government should not be subsidizing a product that cannot sell without the government giving a significant subsidy nor should the government be forcing a transition when EVs are not a practical option for many use cases.

I have nothing against EVs. I actually own two. But I also recognize they're not ready for mass acceptance. They need market forces to drive them to be better and become not just viable alternatives, but better alternatives.

The 'I believe in science' crowd completely dismissed the data several years ago (this is not recently discovered) when confronted with the data that particulates from combustion engines had been mostly eliminated and that most particulate pollution was actually from tires and brakes. And further, BEVs, with their higher weights, actually produced more particulate pollution than ICE vehicles. Instead, they insisted that BEVs were clean, because 'science'.

Now, the eco groups that have always been anti-car are pushing this data as BEVs have gained market share. They're never going to be happy. Bicycle tires and brakes have the same issue as well. Even the soles on our shoes. This is why every sane person needs to stop listening to the eco lobby. They're extremists that will never be happy and never look for practical balance. Reducing pollution is a good goal. Net Zero is an impractical target lest we drastically reduce human population and give up nearly all modern conveniences.

And if it's made of a material that's dry clean only? Or something that's not very durable? Not everything is practical for people in need.

The net effect of this new policy will be manufacturers doing smaller product runs and there being less available and demand for less supply will result in higher prices. Manufacturers will not want to have to deal with new rules for excess inventory, so they'll just have scarce inventory.

It's common to any large bureaucracy. Of which government is very much one. It's one very good reason why the politics of growing government bigger and bigger never accomplish anything of value beyond more government workers requiring more tax collection to pay their salaries.

The globalist progressive bureaucrats are good at one thing - pushing fear to force everyone in to the lifestyle they dictate. Likely while they continue to fly private jets while eating steak to go to their next conference.

Then don't prematurely decommission them because of a bunch of loud activists insisting you do so.

Solar and wind are not necessarily 'green' either. They both have environmental impacts. We just have to decide which impacts are acceptable and which are not. But we should not be going in to it thinking they're completely without downsides.

Because the typical consumer is going to change firmware?

I'm no the typical consumer, but the last time I tried both openwrt and tomato, they were unstable and buggy as hell.

If the federal government is far too big and ignores the will of the voters, then it needs to be destroyed and rebuilt. It needs to reflect the agenda the voters voted for, not be the 'resistance'. No one elected federal workers to resist the elected President.

Trump is doing that purge. The bureaucracy was becoming self sufficient and not beholden to the one elected person in the executive branch. It was becoming a self serving government and not democratic. We saw that in Trump's first term where the bureaucrats were being the 'resistance' and not following the President's agenda. If you really want to 'protect democracy' as Democrats keep ranting about, then you'd be all for having a federal government that actually does what the elected President tells them to do (within legal constraints). If you're all for an unelected bureaucracy that just keeps doing it's thing regardless of who the voters put in office, then you're not for protecting democracy.

This also comes down to differing ideology. Conservatives want small government. The government does the necessities, but always serves the people. Progressives are all about big government. A Progressive government is a large bureaucracy of 'experts' that make every decision and tell the populace how to live. Elected officials are nothing more than figureheads as it's the unlected 'experts' that are given control and make the decisions. It becomes a government where the people serve the government.

The past 80+ years, every Democrat administration has grown the bureaucracy and ceded more power to it. That bureaucracy has, for the most part, had a Progressive agenda. The status quo for when Republicans have been President has been to stall the bureaucracy's growth, but there's been little impact on taking power away from it. That's why there was such a fit when Trump and DOGE started shrinking the bureaucracy. A Republican finally started to try to dismantle the self serving ideological system. Trump was working to give power back to the people and allow the elected President to actually control policy without subterfuge within.

Having worked at a large software company that provided software to many government and defense agencies around the world, we often would have code reviews with those entities. We did one in a conference room with no networking. After a couple weeks of them reviewing the code, we ran a build of it in that room and they took the binaries produced from the code they reviewed. Government agencies do get source access and the ability to review it from proprietary developers. It's part of the contract when you sell to them.

Security risk discussion of TP-Link devices has been going on for over a year. This predates the current Administration.

And how many lives has it improved and extended. Everything has trade offs.

I have no problems moving on to something better. But it's not going to happen overnight. The doomsayers that want nothing less than the complete destruction of the petro industry tomorrow will keep spreading their fear. Life and civilization will continue despite us burning stuff to keep modern quality of life moving along.