In this case, the prime manager, the mayor, had just been replaced inthe election.

Actually, management was blamed left and right, the audit helped force the contracting companies to eat far more of the cost, etc...
Trick i failed to mention, it was the NEW incoming mayor that ordered the audit, and less than 1% of project cost to date.

I looked at a waterfall project where the mayor ended up spending $3M to have an audit done on the current state of a project that was way behind on time and way over budget, only for them to come back and say that it'd be cheaper to burn all the effort to date and start fresh.

They arent selling the product, most likely, a reseller or importer is.
With zero presence in country, they use a 3rd party for shipping, it is basically impossible to go after them.
Think like a small time comic artist selling art getting a commission and mailing it to the country of the buyer, only to find out that the art was 'illegal'.
Thus the go after amazon thing, because they are the enabling party inside the USA.
Another issue is jailbreaking the bikes.
A bike that can do the legal limits with a 200 pound adult on it can do quite a bit more with the limiters removed and a kid only weighing 100 on it.

Five day drive? Wow, I drove from Alaska to Florida in that timeframe.
No, it wouldn't increase it to 7 days, and would only increase it to six if you also substantially decreased driving time.
As for stopping at a dog park - that's why they're installing chargers "all over". So it'd be the "same difference".
Also, why sit at a charger for 40 minutes? Just fill up for 15 minutes and head for the next one.
A 40 minute charging stop would be if you're having a sit-down meal or such outside of the car.
Charging to full with the current batteries is something you'd only really do when stopped for the night.

More expensive might not last that much longer. They were around 50% more expensive in 2021, down to 15% in 2023. Sometime in the next decade or so.
They're already hitting price parity in China.
And that's before considering that the fuel and maintenance savings, where they already win on total cost of ownership, despite the occasional talk of tire consumption.

Except that BOTH of you should be taking a few minutes, not seconds, to get up and walk around a bit. It's the sitting down that is the problem, not just the driving.
Unlike refilling with gasoline, you both can be going and doing something else.
You're looking at maybe an extra half hour of driving.

Uh, say what? Lots of people are concerned about making them work "as well as ICE". Are you after "as well as" or are you actually after "Works identically to"? Because the two are different standards.

In my time we've gone from under 30 miles of range to over 300. We've gone from mandatory overnight charging to being able to reach 80% in 15 minutes. Batteries have gone from like a 3 year life to "longer than the rest of the car". We've gone from almost zero charging stations to over 200k publicly available.

You seem to demand instant home charging, when with ICE the only way to refuel at home is to mess with fuel cans, and most of us don't bother with that, and it's a very limited ability. Empty that fuel can, and you'll need to refill it at a gas station before you can use it again.

Buy an EV, and suddenly visiting a charging station isn't an option, for some reason?

Honestly, once one realizes that the constitution was written even before electricity, I think I can easily argue that the geofence describes it.

The trick is to realize that "particularly" does not mean "specifically" really. A warrant can be rather vague on what is to be seized, like "money", "documents", "drugs", etc...

In this case the location is rather specific in location and time: The vicinity of the Bank during the robbery.
Things to be seized: Digital data stretches this a bit, but "phone number and associated account holder" is also being specific.

In this case, even if it is 500 innocent bystanders being identified, I know of modern non-electronic searches that inconvenience far more people, like setting up blockades during a manhunt.

The founding fathers were, for the most part reasonable. The questions would thus be:
1. Does this have a fairly good chance of identifying the perp?
2. Can the search be restricted more without reducing the odds of identifying the perp?

In this case, the answer to 1 is yes, and 2 is no. That gives the court a strong argument to allow this.
It'd be equivalent to seizing a hotel's guest registry, for example, if a murder happened in the hotel and they thought a guest did it.
Would actually be LESS invasive than that, come to think of it. A guest registry of the 18th century could have months and maybe years of entries.

People are so used to hauling their phone everywhere today, without realizing that it is essentially a continuously active tracking device.

80% is still over 200 miles, over 2 hours of driving, when one is supposed to take a break anyways.
It is also because charging over 80% takes as long to reach 100% as reaching 80% from 10%.
It is literally faster to simply fill up to 80% then stop a bit earlier and fill up again.

Still gives you 10-20 years to make changes.

I'm not seeing how that applies as a response to my post then. There's 4 cars there, presumably one wants to charge all of them if they're EVs?
Also, nothing says that you need to replace all 4 (or more?) with EVs at the same time. Logical move would be to replace 1, get used to it, and if it works out well, consider a 2nd.

Recharges at a supercharger is closer to 15 minutes today than 40. I said and meant 15 minutes.

That is just being dishonest. You specified that you park 2 cars in the garage and more in the driveway, so I answered that.
Now you switch to finances arguing that somebody would only have 1 car?
Holy shifting goalposts Batman.
Charging 1 EV with a 30A circuit is easy mode.