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...

You can discuss the post, but just calling it heavy lifting isn't really discussion.

Indeed, most of the tickets aren't so much that a middle class type can't afford the occasional one. One doesnt need to be a billionaire to not care.

The heavy lifting is you connecting 'if paid' to the statement you quoted.

Picture a Musk, Gates, or Bezos type. They have virtually unlimited ability to speed or run red lights for what is to them a trivial sum.

That's because people willing to pay to take a toll road to save speed can always avoid said toll road if they actually have to follow the speed limit on it. That eliminates the revenue the toll road gets, costing them money.
Florida had this situation with a new toll road that runs parallel to the highway around Orlando. Cops were running speed traps there. They were quickly banned because they noted it was killing the number of people taking the road, costing them far more in revenue.

Perhaps, but camera systems without the officer don't actually issue "tickets" that carry points. They issue "citations" that show up nowhere if paid.

To paraphrase a general, by ensuring they do die for their cause, and we don't.
Our job isn't to die for our country, but to make them die for theirs.

That said, it's expensive and hard, and best avoided when possible.

The problem you get though is what I call the "California Cancer Warning Problem"
Basically, people can only pay attention to so many warnings. The more often people get false or trivial warnings, warnings where they have to continue to get things done as standard, the more likely they are to just plain ignore the warnings.

While hackers might be able to figure out a way to do something malicious without triggering the warning, the warnings back then were worse than useless, because they not only triggered for just about every document, users by default could not assess the document for safety without enabling the scripting. IE I couldn't by default open the document and look at the scripts to assess them (and some of them were only like a dozen lines) without enabling them.

Saying the warnings were necessary also ignores that there have been exploits that didn't even require opening a document to cause infection. Preview was enough.

Basically, if the hackers figured out something clever, just add that to the check. It would still be a better situation than what we had back then.

I’d argue that slavery wasn’t “legal because nobody banned it.” It was legal because there were explicit laws that created, defined, and enforced the institution.

There were statutes specifying who could be held as slaves, rules that the child of an enslaved woman was automatically a slave, procedures for manumission, regulations on how slaves could be bought, sold, punished, or inherited, and laws requiring that escaped slaves be returned. That’s not a legal vacuum, that’s a full legal framework.

It’s similar to how segregation laws later forced discrimination on people who might not have engaged in it otherwise. The state wasn’t passively allowing something; it was actively mandating and structuring it.

Slavery existed because the law built and maintained it, not because the law failed to forbid it.

I remember those days where it would warn if there was any scripting at all, rather than look for dangerous commands first.
Just as a thought, not bothering if the script cannot reach outside of the document itself. Functions that access other files or documents, email functionality, and such triggering the warning instead would have been more effective.

They're still in denial about that. Had one just a couple days ago saying that the gas price increases are just the regular price increase in the spring.

There's a bit of subversion here though: Going by my uncle, social security disability has made it even easier: They automatically reject every application the first time.