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.

Look, I'm predisposed to be on the side of the farmers rather than Monsanto, but claiming "deep pockets" is the reason these lawsuits turned out the way they did is absurd. See Bowman v. Monsanto Co., 569 U.S. 278 (2013), and Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser [2004] 1 S.C.R. 902, 2004 SCC 34 for the actual reasons for the lawsuits.

Further, Monsanto has explicitly declared that they will not engage in the behavior that you are saying is it issue here: "We do not exercise our patent rights where trace amounts of our patented seeds or traits are present in a farmer’s fields as a result of inadvertent means." They're certainly capable of going back on their promises, of course, but an innocent farmer would be able to use that statement in their defense... unless this was more than "pollen that came from a neighboring farm."

Monsanto is a shit company that does shit things. Shit on them (rightfully) for that, not the things that are made up or taken out of context.

Swiss Dual Income No Kids Robinson. :)

Presumably they simply disallow more immigration until they fall back below the cap. But, sure, let's go with the horrifically dystopian option that we have no evidence to support.

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.

Context would make this more clear to the average reader. These were not cases where e.g. seeds blew in from another field and the farmer was held liable. These were the cases where the farmers were buying or using second generation seeds (prohibited under the purchase contract with Monsanto) and treating them with Roundup.

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.

Come on. US educational spending is VERY high on both an absolute and per capita basis, as has already been pointed out to you, and US education has been in decline since at least the 1960s. Arch-conservative (/s) Richard Feynman wrote in his autobiography about how shit our textbooks were when he was on the Arch-conservative (/s) California commission to help choose them. FWIW, I recommend reading this bit regardless of your political persuasion. I do have one quibble with it (personally, I think being able to move between at least base 2, 10, and 16 is actually quite useful, but Feynman was a physicist and not a sysadmin so her gets a pass) but it's illustrative of just how terrible our educational system is, and it is NOT a problem of money.

As far as PBS goes, if you want to know why it was defunded, start here. One of NPR's editors (yes, I know NPR and PBS are separate things), Uri Berliner, claimed that in the quarter century he worked there that it had completely lost diversity of thought, and that was a bad thing. The result is he resigned due to overwhelming hostility from his colleagues. When your Sarah Lawrence/Columbia educated editor, son of the woman who was the founding chair of Sarah Lawrence's Women's Studies department, grandson of jews murdered in Auschwitz, is ringing alarm bells and the response is to force him out... maybe you should be wondering if maybe he had a good point.

Note: I am not at all happy that CPB was defunded. As you noted, they do (or, I guess, did) a lot of great work. But the people steering the ship invited this outcome.

It's even worse than that. The doctrine flies in the face of the wording of 42 USC 1983, which provides:

The court that created qualified immunity decided that the plain wording "the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws" really meant "rights, privileges, or immunities" that some court had clearly and specifically established in case law.

While this example is ridiculous, let's say the court had previously found "anally raping a prisoner with a nightstick while high on cocaine" to be a deprivation, "anally raping a prisoner with a nigthstick while sober" might not be so clearly established and cause the case to be dismissed. This is further compounded by the dismissals that make establishing that in case law a near impossibility.

The "good" news here, such as it is, is qualified immunity only applies to civil suits against the officers specifically. It does not protect them from criminal liability (that's the prosecutor's job *rimshot*) and it does not protect their employer from being sued for the actions of its employee.

It's been difficult to not look at the last half decade and not let my inner conspiracy theorist run wild. The massive supply shortages that persisted through Covid (and now the AI bubble) would make wonderful cover for some kind of EOTWAWKI scenario where governments build arks or whatever.

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.