That is some heavy-duty foil in your hat there. Even allowing for the ridiculously massive technical leap from 1 to 2 and then 2 to 3, it doesn't make much sen

That is some heavy-duty foil in your hat there. Even allowing for the ridiculously massive technical leap from 1 to 2 and then 2 to 3, it doesn't make much sense. For one thing, if states are determined to enforce individual emissions limits, they can do it today with legislation. You don't need a predictive model. What does the model add? Also, the only difference between 2 and 3 is whether a person acts on a thought. So are you suggesting with #3 that predicted thoughts (e.g. not literal mind reading) which a person doesn't act upon will prompt state action?