Indeed. Typical MAGA-level of no insight whatsoever.

It may be *possible* to squint really hard and make up bullshit good-faith justifications for policies that mean one can avoid naming the obvious bad-faith actual justification for said policies. But it is not *advisable*. It makes you look like either a credulous buffoon, or someone who thinks other people on here are all credulous buffoons.

It’s not like Trump and his administration have *hidden* their desire to support ICE vehicles and damage EV vehicles, is it? There was some sort of weird hiatus in Trump’s own rhetoric when he was sucking up [sic and also sick] to Musk for a few months, but since then he’s been back to saying what he said beforehand, that he thinks EVs are shit and should be discouraged. And the rest of his admin never indulged in the hiatus.

Hear hooves, expect horses, not zebras.

And now accuse Peter Gutmann of the same. I dare you.

Incidentally, I know what is at stake. But I also, quite unlike you, understand why "QCs" are not a credible threat.

You still have not read or understood what I wrote. There is nothing wrong with Physics experiments. There is a lot wrong with claiming Physics experiments are computers, when they are anything but.

What do you mean by a four hour turnaround? I’m really confused.

My EV has a 330 mile range and my charging is either done at home (plug in at night, unplug in morning) or at my destination (typically a hotel, and once again plug in at night, unplug in the morning). If I really have to do a fast charge on a longer trip, I can go 10 to 80% in about 40 minutes, so I’ll time a charge for when I’m hungry. But I’ve only done that a couple of times in the last two years.

So it might well be that my current EV meets your nominal needs. Unless you mean something else by turnaround.

This 15k replacement battery thing is clearly absolutely a totemic piece of idiocy that you guys are absolutely stuck on, isn’t it?

I used to have a Renault Zoe with an NMC pack. Here’s the numbers:
Summer range when new: 245 miles
UK average daily driving: 20 miles/day
Battery reaches 80% state of health after 750 equivalent full cycles (EFC) (could actually be as high as 1500 cycles, but let’s be cautious)

1. Daily distance driven = 0.08 of an EFC (20/245)
2. Days to reach 750 EFC = 750 / (20/245) = 9187.5 days.
3. Years to 750 EFC = 9187.5 / 365.25 = approx 25.15 years.
4. If you assume linear degradation and solve, that reduces to approx 23 years

At which point the thing will *still* drive you 200 miles in the summer.

If we now look at a new EV with a 300 mile LFP battery, then the battery will reach 80% state of health after more like 3000 cycles. So we are talking about 300 * 3000 = 900,000 miles of driving, which would take the typical UK driver more than 120 years to reach. At which point the battery would *still* be good for 240 miles of range.

Worrying about range degradation is right up there with worrying about fire risk as being a stupid thing to worry about.

Ending subsidies is also *not* the only thing the Trump administration has done to damage the EV market, so you’re whaling away on a strawman of your own invention. The Trump administration has also:
- Rolled back vehicle emissions / fuel-economy standards
- Attempted to revoke California’s EV-friendly regulatory authority / waivers
- Imposed tariffs on EV supply-chain components
- Raised tariff and non-tariff barriers on Chinese EVs
- Cut EV infrastructure support including *removing installed chargers*
- Ended the regulatory credit system that benefited EV makers
- Raided the Hyundai battery plant
Etc

Been a while since I've flown a budget airline. On the normal flights I've taken, there's always a few people (usually older people) with paper boarding passes.

Not all of them, but most of them. Which is one reason why they like LLMs so much.

You seem to be disconnected from reality. The problem are not tariffs. The problems are unpredictably changing tariffs.

Your evidence has no connection to your argument.

The thing is, it is not a narrative. They have worked pretty hard at making it a reality.

Only by any evidence you have seen. Which seems to be none at all, as you so conveniently state. And that is because you have not looked. Really, all you are doing is showing how incapable you are.

What stupid-ass summary is that? What you should not do is predict a technology will be useful "soon" when all the evidence says otherwise. For QCs, if they scale linearly (they likely do much worse), they will be a problem for current encryption around the year 4000 or so. There is nothing wrong with running Physics experiments. But you need to see them as what they are.

Pay attention. These jobs are _already_ in China. This is about bringing them back. Which is a _lot_ more difficult.