Insurrection: a violent uprising against an authority or government (source: "define:insurrection" search in Google).

The people there were very clear they were protesting against the government, and people died as a direct result of their actions, so yes, it was violent even if the majority of people who were present did not participate in the violence, which fits the definition of an insurrection. Just because the Hollywood version of it shows more bullets and explosions doesn't mean last Wednesday's events don't also qualify.

As for "The police intentionally .. let them in", if you intentionally leave your garage door open and everyone in your neighborhood decides to come into your house to yell at you, they're still trespassing and they don't have a right to take your stuff, or break your family photos. And in most states if you tell them to leave, and one of them then tries to force their way into the room you and your family are having dinner in, you're allowed to shoot them without charges. "They left the door open" is never a defense against trespassing except unless you're an actual six year old.

"Now the entire country ... is abandoning the concept of free speech completely". It's frustrating that people continuously need this explained. The right to free speech specifically does not allow you to tell another person to commit a crime. If they do, you are open to criminal conspiracy charges, even if you didn't think they'd go do it. If that crime involves something that resembles "insurrection", the consequences are more severe and I don't think the government would (or should) take it lightly.

But put all that aside. If anyone consistently used a popular service with language that then potentially incited a , I think we all know that company's lawyers would recommend that person be dropped from the service so that the company doesn't get sued by those harmed in the incident.

"Performance" -- what aspect? Raw compute power? Specific benchmarking applications? OS dependent or not?
"98% of PC laptops" -- which models? which manufacturers? which operating systems?

Without knowing these things (just to focus on two), it's impossible to ascertain how close to reality the marketing spin is.

That said, the article's author did themselves no favors by rattling off a list of very powerful PCs that are pretty likely in the 2% range. It should (though the article kinda pointed it out) go without saying that the bulk of PC laptops shipped this year are low cost and lower powered machines. The number of people who suddenly needed to get computers for their kids to homeschool has definitely exacerbated that number. So it seems like the author's big issues are that a) Apple isn't being super transparent about how they got to those numbers (which, um, is marketing), and b) Apple isn't giving numbers for "comparable" machines, though if they did, people would be arguing over whether or not the selected competitors were truly comparable and representative. The article would probably have been stronger if it just called out the problems and toned down the mock outrage at marketing speak.

It's important to remember that the CA state government is not your power company. Nor is the government the one shutting off the power, as the OP suggested; that's the power companies themselves because they don't want to start any more wildfires.

That said, there's already a plan in place to provide the additional power. From TFA "To ensure needed infrastructure to support zero-emission vehicles, the order requires state agencies, in partnership with the private sector, to accelerate deployment of affordable fueling and charging options." Besides that, all residential homes with 3 floors or fewer are required to have solar panels. In 2018, rooftop solar was already providing about 5% of the state's power in the summer. Power companies in CA have been planning for an explosion of small, home-based power generation (solar, wind, etc) for over a decade. It's one of the reasons they started installing Smart Meters 10 years ago.

Other things to remember:

• They are not banning you from going to Nevada or Oregon to by a non-EV and then register it here.
• They are not banning you from buying a used non-EV.
• Bigger trucks and SUVs have an extra decade.
• About 2 million cars are sold in CA each year, which means that for all 41 million people to get EVs, it will take another 20+ years.
• If self-driving cars become a reality between now and then, it is likely that fewer people in the big cities and larger towns will need to own cars at all (and that your car could drive off to charge wherever it's cheapest while you're at work or sleeping).
• Tesla Superchargers can already charge 1000 miles of power in 60 minutes, so unless you're going on a road trip most people probably wouldn't need to spend more than 30 minutes charging their car in a given week *today*. There's no reason to think this wouldn't improve steadily in the next 15 years, and be more common in commercial chargers, even if it still takes longer than pumping 10 gallons of gas.
• Battery technology has also dramatically improved, and will continue to do so, which means you'll need to charge less often in general.

I'm sorry, but the Green party candidate (and any other political party candidate that isn't Democrat or Republican) has no chance on the national stage at this point and, honestly, they're just pissing money away. I say that as someone who would almost certainly vote for a viable Green candidate over the current mainstream parties. The only possible way for a 3rd party to gain viability today is to get a foothold in Congress, which would mean several people in the House and at least a few in the Senate. The path to Congress runs through state legislatures and governorships. Until the Green party can be successful at the state level, in more than one state, whoever they put up for President will lose. Currently they have about 130 elected officials anywhere in the US; none of them are Governors or members of their state's legislature. Even if they managed to get a handful of Electoral votes (even a *single* vote), it won't affect the overall political calculus of the voting public, let alone the Republicans and the Democrats. Essentially, supporting a non-viable candidate in a Presidential election is wasting your vote, unless you live in a state where your second choice candidate is so far ahead as to make the "loss" of your vote a non-issue. Most people do not have the *privilege* of living in such a state, which you should remember before you try to convince someone in Ohio or Florida that they should support the Green party over the Democrats. Of course, if we change the Presidential race to a stack-rank direct vote, everything I just said would be rendered invalid.