Definitely a reading comprehension problem then. I mean, I only mentioned that it's "unlikely" to be extraterrestrial craft several times. Nowhere do I mention it actually being extraterrestrial craft.
Numerous TV shows and plenty of people claiming to have met extraterrestrials, been kidnapped by them, etc... indicates that no, there are indeed people "stupid" enough to assume that extraterrestrials are flying around planet Earth.
I'm not one of them. It's mostly my bent for not claiming unprovable absolutes that I don't say that they absolutely don't exist. Just, well, I'm more likely to win the lottery tomorrow. By finding a random lotto ticket, because I don't play.

Are you aware that you seem to have problems with reading comprehension? There's a difference between "they think it involves" and "it involves".

Yes, this is about stuff we've been recording since we first started putting cameras on planes.

Quite probably not, for most of them. You don't get the good feelings of doing an actual raid against "bad guys" like drug dealers and such. Nor the positive accolades, plus knowledge of possibly triggering another BLM event and the hassle of that.
But SWAT and bomb squads are specialists. It isn't their job or skill set to track this guy down, thus they have to rely on the FBI and such due to the border crossing interstate nature of the crime

We aren't just talking about man-made objects, but a whole range of things, many of which are not man made or even flying. Thus the renaming from UFO TO UAP makes perfect sense. Note how I didn't mention UFO once.
Now, I do believe that the congressional hearings are at least partially due to beliefs that some of them are extraterrestrial in origin, and not in the sense of a meteor or other natural space object. Which is why I mentioned it.
I mean, no where did I call those reporting to be "UFO nutters". Where did I say anything to imply that? I said they saw something, submitted the evidence, and even after expert review it can't be explained. However, I am saying that in a lot of cases, it will remain unresolved due to 'insufficient evidence'. It is like trying to solve a murder from 50 years ago where you don't have a body or a suspect.

It is investigated, around 3 levels of investigation. A person on ship or base, then a team at the pentagon, then even select NASA people. It is just that at the end of the day, "not enough information" is a possible result.
It could indeed be a weird craft like the B-2 bomber back when it first started flying. These days it could be a drone with a fancy shell.
It could be an unusual weather event.
It could be an animal
It could be a sensor malfunction
Some sort of optical illusion
A combination of the above.

It is like a person claiming to have seen chupacabra. Most likely it was just a coyote with mange seen at long range, in the dark, around bushes. But we can't prove that, even if he snapped a picture, because the quality is too low, and even if we catch a coyote with mange in the area, can we prove that that was what they saw at that time?

I just know that it is unlikely to actually be chupacabra or an extraterrestrial craft.

Thing is, the abortion type you describe is already illegal, and has been for a couple decades.

This is about banning abortion all the way down to the pill. Some even want to ban the morning after pill, even for rape cases.

Indeed.

Consider that the US Navy is going to be the biggest flyers of aircraft with serious sensor equipment in 'weather'. But operated by non-scientific trained pilots and crew for the large part.

So they get something they don't know, they report it to their chain of command. It gets routed to better experts, who probably categorize like 99% without a problem. Now we're having hearings on the remaining 1% or so.

Well, that depends on how you count 'insufficient evidence' as an explanation, I guess.

In a lot of cases, enough detail was either never collected or lost, so a better explanation just isn't possible.

Wow your hate is ignorant.
there was no travel ban on Jan 30, 2020. There was one of Jan 31, 2020 and what it did was add some more countries to the list which were banned from September 24,2017.
So that answers your question, they didn't wait it had already in effect.

Since what you wrote has already been proven a lie by various people if you want an actual example of that it would be biden and the evacuation planning for Afghanistan.
There biden/harris did close down the office doing the work and instead went and implemented their own plan and we see how many deaths that caused and the pain and suffering the democrat plan still is still doing.

Are we sure that article wasn't AI written? It transitions from talking about NaIon batteries to supercapacitors not involving sodium at all, and doesn't bring it back.

Having separate battery chemistries isn't really necessary, as LiIon in amounts for useful ranges already have the necessary power capacity.

Instead, if NaIon is truly capable of supercapacitor level performance, it could instead be used for things like regenerative braking to reduce cycles on LiIon cells. But given that we're hearing about million mile EV batteries, not really necessary there. Not worth the engineering and production cost for a hybrid battery system.

Searching, it says 83 kWh in the USA today, and trending up. More importantly, back of napkin calculating, 100kWh doesn't require me to bust out a calculator.

And a range of two orders of magnitude for EV charging makes using that as an estimate wierd/hard as well.

About the only EV capable of 1MW charging would be the Tesla Semi.

I figure it was a typo of "rate of cell demand growth".

Didn't I have like three sentences saying that? Like 'not installed in cars', 'installed near EV chargers'.

24GWh/2k kWh = 12k, not 12 million. k to M to G

24 GWh/year implies enough batteries to produce 24 GW for 1 hour made in 1 year, not that that is the amount of energy you can feed through the batteries in a year.
Given that typical battery capacity of EVs is around 100kWh, I'm getting 240k EVs worth of production per year.
They are expected to charge EVs though in the sense of not being installed in cars (more like 60kWh limited range EVs in that case, due to the lower energy density), but being installed near chargers to provide the vast number of watts needed to truly fast charge an EV, then charge back up when not in use, providing a more or less constant load on the grid. They can also be used to load balance renewable energy. They're more for power wall type applications than EV use.

And... The sourse article doesn't say 24 GWh, it says 24GW, which given the power abilities of both LiIon and NaIon, isn't nearly as impressive, and would explain the 24k cars