ie what you're saying...the Court replies:

"the Government need not address all aspects of a problem in one fell swoop...Furthermore, as we have already concluded, the Government had good reason to single out TikTok for special treatment"

Congress can solve one problem without needing to solve all problems.

You're Apple or Google's lawyer - the CEO asks, should I take Tiktok down from the app store. What do you say?

Otoh there's a law and civil penalty. On the other, Trump says he won't enforce. Statute of limitations is 5 years, and the liability will exist whether Trump enforces or not. In 5 years, there will (may?) be a new president. On the other hand, trump saying he's not going to enforce may give us an out if we're ever sued over this (we just did what the Pres told us to do...).

Hard call, I give > 50% that they take it down whatever Trump says.

The "exclusion" referred to in this quote is not the exclusion of tiktok. The court is responding to one of the arguments that tiktok made. Certain types of websites are excluded from the law, and (tiktok says) if you have to look at what kind of website it is, then obviously you're discriminating based on content.

the court is saying that this would be an argument that this law is unconstitutional, period. That's a very hard thing to prove because you need to show that the law is bad in all contexts, and to whoever it applies to, very hard. So tiktok is not trying to prove that, that's not how they challenged the law - instead tiktok is trying to prove something much more limited, ie that the law is bad when applied to tiktok. It's an "as-applied" challenge. In which case, the argument about looking at other websites is irrelevant, we already know we're looking at tiktok. As the opinion says "the exclusion is not within the scope of [Tiktok's] as-applied challenge"

I think it's understandable, in a Chesterton's Fence sort of way - they better make sure that if they're going to start using a new methodology, it works better than what they use now, (these weird judge-created levels of scrutiny), but there's so much 1A precedent that is hard to be confident.

For 2nd amendment, they have used 'originalism' already. There isn't nearly as much precedent in that area, and so they were able to start more or less from scratch.

The fact that the price has come down in the past couple of years means that either demand has shifted down (that is, keeping the price constant, people demand less) or that supply has shifted up.

On the demand side, it's unclear to me, I'd appreciate any pointers others would have. While advanced countries get more efficient with their use of energy, emerging economies are increasing their demand as more people escape poverty.

What is clear is that the supply curve has shifted up. Both because of technological improvements in the U.S. in fracking, and due to political improvements in countries like Iran, Iraq and Nigeria.