I was not disputing that, just that since I never saw a gas station without electricity, I do not know if they would use a bucket, some kind of manual pump or something else to get the fuel.

That's cool.

Yes, can you get power from one EV to charge another, similar to siphoning fuel from one gas-powered car into a bucket and pouring that gas into the tank of another car?

LPG here looks rather popular, seeing that most gas stations have it and that there are quite a few companies specializing in installing/repair of LPG equipment.
LPG is about half the price of gasoline, but has less energy, so the car consumes more of it (not double though), the range is lower (I can switch back to gasoline when I run out of LPG though) and the tank takes up space in the trunk.

I have solar panels at home, rated 10kW. In Winter, when covered with snow, the panels produce about 50W of power when it's sunny.
I am not climbing on the snow-covered roof to clean the snow, since it would be extremely easy to fall and die or be severely injured.

I have never seen a gas station with no electricity, but I'm sure in an emergency they will use a bucked or a manual pump. I have used a bucket to transfer gas from one car to another though. No way to do that with electricity.

"Easy to fix at home with a few euros of spare parts" is better IMO than "almost never breaks down, but when it does it will cost you as much as an engine rebuild of an old car".

I am happy to use LPG. It's inexpensive and I can use an old car that does not have computers and does not need updates.

EVs are tax-free right now, yes. They won't be.

For example, the money from fuel tax is used to maintain the roads. EVs damage the roads as much as gas-powered cars do, so the government will find a way to take the money. Right now EVs are subsidized from the fuel and other taxes. Once the majority starts using EVs expect to pay the same taxes as I pay for fuel now.

For gasoline, you can use a bucket or a manually operated pump.

About electronics - well, that's why I use an old car with a carburetor and points ignition.

I can keep a few gas cans at home and use those to fill my car at any time. Do your solar panels produce enough power to charge your car in winter, when covered with snow?

You don't pay for electricity at home?

Where I live, the price of gas is about 1.4EUR/L, but about half of that is tax. If most people replaced their cars with EVs next month, how long do you think it would take the government to impose a similar tax on using the EV? I doubt the government will just do without the tax money.

Also, instead of using gasoline, if you drive a lot, mod your car to burn LPG, it's cheaper..

Confusion, some devices may use the wrong IP to send broadcast or multicast packets. Having to configure multiple IPs on devices. Even if the marjority of devices will not get incoming connections from the internet.

Well, or, you know, the one who says "you are holding it wrong, there is only one way to hold it correctly and if you think that holding it differently is more convenient you are wrong, that's why we added a spike there, to make sure you don't hold it differently"

Oh, your ISP only gave you a /64 that contains more IPs than the entire IPv4 address space? Well, now you have to restructure your internal network and get rid of vlans, because "that is the way". In this case, then a IPv6 /64 is less useful than a single IPv4 IP, since I can use vlans now.

The ones who say that IPv6 is not just about changing the protocol to increase the number of available IP addresses, but that I should also change the way I do things because "it is supposed to be that way". Namely the topic about NAT.

Right now I use IPv4 with NAT and do not have problems. In theory, I could get IPv6 from my ISP, give private IPV6 addresses (whatever the equivalent of RFC1918 for IPv6 is) to those devices that support v6, set up NAT on the router and it should work just as well as IPv4 does now. Some people may decide to do differently, and give publicly-addressable IPs to all devices )or even multiple IPs for each device), that's their choice.

At some point, Linux did not support NAT for IPv6 and for a while the devs refused to implement it because "you don't need NAT with IPv6", though they lost and now Linux does support IPv6 NAT.

While NAT was created primarily to postpone running out of IPv4 addresses, I think it has other uses/conveniences than just that.

Another example - subnets. As I understand, the ISP is supposed to give me at least a /64 subnet, but, according to some people (whom I call purists) if I get only a /64 and not a bigger subnet, I cannot subdivide it for different vlans. I should only have one vlan or go beg my ISP for a /63 or whatever. Really? If that's the case, then IPv6 sucks, because with IPv4 (and NAT) I can have as many vlans as I want and I do not have to ask my ISP for anything. If I had a /24 of IPv4, I could split it up among many vlans and not need NAT, so I should be able to split up a IPv6 /64 into many smaller subnets and use those with no NAT, right. Apparently, I could do that, but "it's not the proper way".

Wouldn't that mean that the traffic would have to go though the router, even in the same vlan?

Multiple IPs on a device with one network interface, that's not good, so it would be one IP which would be translated when accessing the internet. One v4 IP and on v6 that would be it. I mean some devices may not even be able to have multiple IPs configured on them.

Right now, the printer has some private IP, it can be accessed by that IP inside the network and if it tries to access something outside, then my router translates that IP to whatever public IP my ISP has assigned.

With IPv6 (the ideal way), the printer would have a public IP and could be accessed directly from outside, unless there was a firewal to stop that. If the printer tried to access something on the internet, it would use its own public IP (which would be different from the IP of, say, my PC). That IP, or rather subnet, would be assigned by the ISP. If the ISP decides to change the subnet, the IP of my printer also has to change, since otherwise it would not be able to access the internet anymore.

With IPv6 (the way I think I would do), it would be similar to IPv4 right now, the printer having an unchanging private IP and when it tries to download a new set of ads, the router would translate that IP to the subnet that my ISP assigned - the public IP could be the same as for my other devices (like with v4) or it could get its own public IP separate from the others. If the ISP decides to change the subnet, the only changes would be to the translation rule and not to the printer.

According to purists, with IPv6, all my devices would have public IPs, with the ISP providing the subnet and I assigning various IPs in that subnet to my devices, including my printer (which may or may not need internet access) as an example.

If I change ISPs or the ISP decides to change the subnet assigned to me for some reason, now I have to change the IPs of all of my devices.

OTOH, if I use NAT, the IP of my printer can stay the same, I'll just change the iptables rule.