Sorry little late to the thread, and fair points to you for admitting you’re wrong on the Internet! Lol

From your comment below:

>My main point though, is that indictment does not mean that the court or government thinks you are guilty.

I think we’re just having a miscommunication over what “the government” is. Since you said “court or government” it sounds like you’re saying the US or State government where you’ve been charged, and you’re correct that the entire government considers you innocent until proven guilty.

In court parlance, “The Government” I’m referring to means the prosecutor. If you were indicted, the case would be “The United States vs Ninjaromeo” and you would be referred to as your name or “the defendant,” while the prosecutor would be referred to as “the government.”

Prosecutors do not bring cases against people unless they think they can win the eventual court case, so by that definition, any indictment is the prosecutor (and using that parlance, “the government”) thinking you’re guilty.

And just to comment on your strikethroughs, as you are correct on some points though your interpretations went outside of reality. You’re right that only the prosecutor presents anything, but that is to make sure that based on that evidence they have a trial in the first place. Trials are expensive, and if a case can’t stand up to evidence without a defense, it definitely won’t stand up without one. In some cases the prosecutor can just go to a judge, but grand juries are a way to make that even more impartial particularly in high profile cases where it might be difficult to find an impartial jury.

Your fourth paragraph is where your comment went off the rails though, grand jury proceedings are secret for a reason, and cannot be used as evidence. Only evidence can be used as evidence. If they don’t see that you’ve met probable cause, you aren’t going to win in a trial anyway, so not putting taxpayer dollars toward that is a good thing.

I hope that helps and if we want to look at the only silver lining to trump, it’s that any of us paying attention are getting a great lesson in American civics and our legal system! 😜

It's a formal notice from the government that they believe you have committed a crime.

Lets say you counterfeit $100 and use it to buy something at the store. Later on, the store realizes the bill is fake, and hand it over to the FBI along with their security footage from that day. You're unlucky because you were the only guy to pay with a $100 bill that day, and your face is clearly on video, and they got your license plate from the parking lot, so they quickly learn your address, and what kinda looks to be a paper press in the back of your car. Sucks to be you!

Now he can't just call up the local police and get them to raid your house, that's not how any of this works. First he has to go to a judge, say "I know this guy is counterfeiting, I think he has a machine in his car and I'd like to go find out." The judge would then sign a search warrant and the DA gets to send cops to look at your car. Oops, they found a paper press that can print the bill you used, and a receipt from a local pawn shop for it. The DA might go back to the judge and ask to subpoena the pawn shop, asking for any evidence they may have. They produce an e-mail where you say you were looking for a paper press that can produce realistic looking bills... for movie production of course. You're looking pretty guilty at this point, and you know something's up, but haven't been arrested yet, so you get a lawyer.

Now the DA will bring all of that info to a Grand Jury, who's just a group of 12 people like a normal jury, present all the evidence he has, and asks them "If you were a trial jury, based on this evidence, would you believe that this guy committed a crime?" All 12 vote yes and the Judge signs the Indictment. It's still under seal, but since it's a non-volent crime, they contact your lawyer and say you need to turn yourself in, or the United States Government will hunt you down and arrest you. Your passport is also flagged, so you can't leave.

Obviously the only good option is to turn yourself in, they put the cuffs on and you begin dealing with the American Criminal Justice system. Good luck! You're gonna need it.

What is? They actually did that and for good reason. Their biggest customer is Airbus and they didn’t want to pay all the import duties into the EU.

Also worth noting that pre-brexit, they moved most of their IP to Germany and effectively re-organized as a German company.

It’s called a consumer protection law. If a climate catastrophe happens and we go to war over what resources are left, that would be detrimental to human technological advancement.

There’s no possible way to advance the tech, so bans direct resources to things that will help.

I understand basic physics and I'm an engineer in the automotive space. It's pretty easy to tell that ICE has writing on the wall (ICE by the way, ICO isn't a thing).

We've basically worked out every possibility for the ICE. Efficiency is theoretically limited, we know what it's limited to, and we're pretty damn close to that. It's provably impossible to progress on efficiency, and even if we did, they would still be putting out more carbon and NOx than any xEV.

Hydrogen ICE still produces NOx, eFuels require an abundance of clean green energy to be even remotely worth it and those are basically the two paths forward for the ICE. For commuting and medium distance, BEVs are the clear winner, they're also just more profitable than ICE cars, and as more models become available, cheaper for consumers too, so everyone's going to switch anyway.

This ban is enhancing tech progress, as we'll be adopting and improving a clearly superior technology faster with the ban than having to wait for consumers to decide while we continue to pass of the costs of using carbon emitting fuels to the next generations (when they'll have to deal with climate catastrophes rather than advancing tech as a functional society).

Maybe do a bit of research on how all of your points don’t hold up to reality. There is exactly a 0% chance that ICE cars are “the best way forward.” The reason they’ve been used is that you don’t have to pay the full cost of transport, deferring that onto later generations.

EVs are also far more carbon efficient even when powered by coal, that argument is nonsensical.

This is a ban on new sales, maybe we’ll be able to lift it someday when we’re 100% renewable and we can make efuels with the abundant extra energy output, but right now it’s an obvious gushing wound trying to kill us all.