As with my sig: "The biggest challenge of the 21st century is the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity."
https://pdfernhout.net/recogni...
        "Nuclear weapons are ironic because they are about using space age systems to fight over oil and land. Why not just use advanced materials as found in nuclear missiles to make renewable energy sources (like windmills or solar panels) to replace oil, or why not use rocketry to move into space by building space habitats for more land? ...
        These militaristic socio-economic ironies would be hilarious if they were not so deadly serious. ...
        There is a fundamental mismatch between 21st century reality and 20th century security thinking. Those "security" agencies are using those tools of abundance, cooperation, and sharing mainly from a mindset of scarcity, competition, and secrecy. Given the power of 21st century technology as an amplifier (including as weapons of mass destruction), a scarcity-based approach to using such technology ultimately is just making us all insecure. Such powerful technologies of abundance, designed, organized, and used from a mindset of scarcity could well ironically doom us all whether through military robots, nukes, plagues, propaganda, or whatever else... Or alternatively, as Bucky Fuller and others have suggested, we could use such technologies to build a world that is abundant and secure for all. ...
      So, while in the past, we had "nothing to fear but fear itself", the thing to fear these days is ironcially ... irony. :-)
      So, how can we transcend militarism?
      Simple persuasive rhetoric was tried, and failed, when Albert Einstein said, with the creation of atomic weapons everything had changed except our way of thinking.
      The economic argument against war was tried, and failed; see "War is a Racket" by Two-Time Congressional Medal of Honor Recipient Major General Smedley D. Butler...
      A basic moral argument against war was tried, and failed; see Freeman Dyson's book "Weapons and Hope" that says nuclear weapons are a moral evil, like slavery.
      A deeper religious argument against war was tried, and failed, see "James P. Carse, Religious War In Light of the Infinite Game, SALT talk"...
      We even tried public education through TV to create an enlightened citizenry (what high hopes back when TV was created) and that even got corrupted into promoting and celebrating violence. See the book by Diane E. Levin and Nancy Carlsson-Paige "The War Play Dilemma" for ways to deal with that if you have children...
        So, people have tried, and tried again, and failed to turn the tide, both people in the military and people outside the military. Still, each attempt has contributed, but together they have not yet been enough yet to turn the tide and help the USA transcend militarism and empire.
      What else can we try that does not just beget more violence? ...
      Maybe ironic humor is our last, best hope against the war machines?
      As was quoted by Joel Goodman of the Humor Project...: "There are three things which are real: God, human folly, and laughter. The first two are beyond our comprehension. So we must do what we can with the third. (John F. Kennedy)"
      The big problem is that all these new war machines and the surrounding infrastructure are created with the tools of abundance. The irony is that these tools of abundance are being wielded by people still obsessed with fighting over scarcity. So, the scarcity-based political mindset driving the military uses the technologies of abundance to create artificial scarcity. That is a tremendously deep irony that remains so far unappreciated by the mainstream.
      We the people need to redefine security in a sustainable and resilient way. Much current US military doctrine is based around unilateral security ("I'm safe because you are nervous") and extrinsic security ("I'm safe despite long supply lines because I have a bunch of soldiers to defend them"), which both lead to expensive arms races. We need as a society to move to other paradigms like Morton Deutsch's mutual security ("We're all looking out for each other's safety") and Amory Lovin's intrinsic security ("Our redundant decentralized local systems can take a lot of pounding whether from storm, earthquake, or bombs and would still would keep working"). ..."

If one buys an EV then loses their job, many of the same problems apply to an ICE vehicle, making that payment. In any case, charge at home instead, use supercharger stations around, etc... Like learning where to best fill up with gasoline for a different job location.
BYD didn't so much chose to not build a factory here as they are blocked from doing so.
More and more used EVs are hitting the market.

Lots of people already own their home. So no need to buy out a lease.
Even if they are renting, may landlords would not object to an upgrade.
Besides, we're still at that an extension cord out of an ordinary outlet works for many.
Nirvana fallacy - it does not have to work for 100% of people to still be a valid solution for many.

Consider that there are going to be people who less "want" a new car than "need" a new car, due to things like accidents, family changes, wear and tear rendering a car unreliable, etc...
Then there are people who have the disposable funds who have decided it is time.
Basically, people buying new cars is continuous. What the war on Iran and subsequent oil price increase has done is make more of them look at the cost of the gasoline chugging vehicles against EVs and decide to go with the EV, because we don't know how long it will last.

For somebody who was going to buy a new vehicle this quarter anyways, going with an EV will likely work out just fine.

I already own a hybrid. This is not causing me to rush out to buy an EV.

I am seeing fewer pickups and SUVs on the road though.

Your entire post assumes the intelligence and foresight of a potato on the part of the buyer.
Get someone to install a decent charger at home: View it as part of the purchase price of the car, if one even needs it. Many can actually charge enough using a standard outlet, and in some areas the dryer and/or electric panel is right in the garage, so a bigger charger isn't hard. Most home chargers are just fancy cables anyways, the car's on board charger does the heavy lifting.
Drive to the office on lowish battery: Didn't plug it in the last 3 days or so, I guess?
Find out the office doesn't have a single charger: One would think one would know this before they bought the car. Alternatively, I know of people who bought an EV because their work not only has chargers, but they're free, so don't have to pay for gas or electricity.
Limp home: Alternatively, they can use an extension cord to a convenience outlet outside to get 30-40 miles over a 8 hour shift even if there aren't any dedicated EV charging outlets, or visit a fast charging station. Cost a bit more money, but that's like getting gas just outside an airport due to poor planning.
Replacing the battery: The official lifespan of an EV battery today is 8-15 years (and the 8 years is getting old). Seriously, it's like planning to replace the engine in an ICE car at this point. Does it happen to a percentage of vehicles? Yes, but most ICE vehicles never see a replacement engine. Neither will most EV cars.
Month to get a "shipment of batteries" - no, it is more like a week in most cases. Replacement is rare enough that yes, sourcing an OEM replacement can be tough at times, but I've also seen ICE vehicles grounded for months because of lack of parts.
In addition, replacing the battery is unlikely to be a "sudden" requirement. It'd be like elective surgery, schedulable.
Meanwhile, if one has one of the more common EV models, rebuilt batteries are more and more available.
And no, not every small shop will work on them, but a quick search showed 4 shops that explicitly work on EVs but are not dealers within 30 miles of me. Meanwhile, there's less need on average for work anyways. Your favorite shop can still probably work on the brakes, suspension, and such. Tire shops have zero concerns. Etc...

The real problem is "connected", not un-encrypted.

The implication of your last sentence is that AI will become increasingly a non-sequitur for some professions after they lose the experts to compose the right prompts and correctly interpret the results. Companies won't see this immediately, but it will happen to them.

As it turns out, I and a lot of other people are willing to pay a fee to avoid seeing ads, so the shows do actually get funded anyway.

I hate ads with a passion, and miss the old days of the internet where people would get mad at you for advertising.

It's kind of surprising how little press coverage Artemis has gotten. People flew around the moon.

Seriously? Turn your brain on. You can think better than that.

I can accept art as communication, but how do you consider it dialogue? A dialogue requires the listener to respond in some way, it's a two way communication. How is the listener answering back to the artist?

The people who don't have a problem with it aren't complaining.

It's clearly not real, but cartoons are also clearly not real. And we enjoy cartoons.

Everything you said is right, but it doesn't lead to the conclusion. Yes, actors have lots of skills. But that doesn't answer the question:

If AI can do the job of an actor, why would acting deserve special protection from automation?

WLM = Windows Live Mail