Your mentioning having slow chargers at destinations, such as offices, is actually a potential solution to apartments being slow about installing charging capacity, or being too expensive about it.
Have people charge at work, not home, in such cases.
The workplace will probably want reasonable rates, many already cover parking for their employees, and with solar power ever expanding, daytime power might actually become cheaper than nighttime.
For areas with actual parking lots, imagine covering the lot with solar panels. Help keep cars cool and clean, not snow covered, etc... While charging them up.
Might not work as well in the extreme north, but not all of the USA is that far north.

I don't remember the last time I visited a gas station in the United States that didn't have pay at the pump available. I'm sure there are some janky stations out there, but not many.

Plus, at least in the USA, refueling one of our 300 mile ranged EVs is only maybe 50% more often than a gasoline vehicle - you don't want to go under 10% in a gasoline vehicle anyways, but while full is not a problem with ICE, with an EV you probably want to stick to around 80% most of the time to avoid the charging slowdown (upcoming tech may change this). 30% is probably closer. IE if you need to fill up 10 times with an ICE vehicle on a trip, with an EV it'd be 13 charging stops.

Plus or minus some accounting for placement of towns and charging/fuel stations.

That's only about 60 miles difference,

I rarely use semicolons; decades ago my teachers always used a red pen to replace them with a period and capitalize the next word. I eventually just gave up and complied with their grammar regime.

"and picks your charging stops", I should have added. On long trips it optimizes to minimize charging time, which typically translates to 2-3 hours of driving, then a 20-minute stop, then 2-3 hours of driving, repeat. The charging stops tend to align pretty well with bio-break needs.

It's really not.

In practice what you do is you use the car's navigation system, and it tells you if you need to charge to get to your destination. About the only manual planning I do on road trips is to think about where we'll be for meals and override the automatic charger selection to pick chargers in those places, and check the icons on the charge station to make sure there's food nearby. This is a minor annoyance, far more than offset by the fact that when I'm not on a road trip I never have to go to gas stations at all, and pay no attention at all to my "fuel" level.

The best numbers I've been able to find put that number at about 25% of car owners. That is a large number of people, but it's not a good reason to hold up the EV transition. Such people will transition last, and only after public charging options are sufficient that they don't need charging at home (and after apartment complexes deploy charging infrastructure so more apartment-dwellers can charge at home).

Also, we need to help people understand all you really need for home charging is a standard 120V outlet from which you can safely run an extension cord to your car. L1 charging will add ~40 miles of range every night, so unless you drive more than ~280 miles per week (14,600 miles per year), L1 is enough. Access to some public charging is also required, to deal with exceptional circumstances, but it can be rare and used only for getting a 15-minute quick charge when the battery is low. L2 is nicer, of course, but it's not the minimum requirement most people think it is. L2 at home enables you to pretty much just forget about charging/fueling ever in your daily life. It's a significant improvement over having to deal with gas stations, so people want it... but it's not a necessity.

We need to avoid all-or-nothing thinking. It will likely be the case for quite some time that people with unusual requirements have to stick with fossil-fuel vehicles. If there are legal electrification requirements they need to have an exception process.

I actually don't think we need legal electrification requirements, myself. If we put a reasonable carbon tax on fossil fuels (calibrated based on our best assessment of the future cost of mitigating the warming that will be caused by burning the fuel) to internalize that externality and if we drop trade barriers that block the purchase of cheap EVs manufactured in China, the transition will happen on its own for purely economic reasons. It'll probably happen even without those steps, but they would make it happen a lot faster.

For that matter, I think we don't even need to impose the carbon taxes and tariffs, just pass them. Phase them in over a decade, so people know they're coming, and people will begin making the change even before they take effect.

Meanwhile, the Alexa team is hoping to have a conversation with ChatGPT on how to successfully monetize Alexa.

The infection was already there. Anyone who'd invested in any mortgage derived securities was compromised because the underwriting and scoring process was fundamentally fraudulent. Securities are rated and, at least in theory, those ratings are supposed to reflect the degree of risk. But the scoring agencies essentially became captives of the folks minting the securities and just handed out great ratings like halloween candy.

The Fed and the money printing and all that -- concerning as it all was -- really had more to do with making sure the national banking industry and therefore the currency didn't fail. There was a moment there when it really felt like a financial 9/11... like everything could come crashing down all across the world as a result of something that happened in Manhattan.

It's just an anecdote, but I vividly remember the short-term credit markets freezing up and everyone collectively realizing that nearly every business in the country uses short term credit to manage cashflow so that they can decouple employee paychecks and infrastructure purchases from sales and client payments in terms of timing. Most people just didn't know that and, without credit to make the accounting process move fluidly, like half the country was looking down the barrel of "well, we'll pay you when we know we have money in the accounts."

It's easy to run the Fed down now, but we were one or two days away from a grim fable with an unhappy, bloody ending.

This all powerfully reminds me of the deals the big banks like Lehman Brothers and Bear Sterns struck back in 2006 and 2007. If you're too young to remember that particular shitshow, the mortgage industry was fundamentally toxic and a bunch of securities were created by mushing bad mortgages in with good ones so that the combination looked secure enough to invest in.

And then THOSE securities were subdivided up and repackaged into even more securities. And so on. And so on.

Bad debt ended up "infecting" the entire market such that it was essentially impossible to invest in "safe" mortgages and so, when the collapse happened, many of the banks found out that the bets they *thought* they were making to hedge their bets on the risky side of the housing bubble were, in fact, just MORE BETS on the risky side of the housing bubble.

At this point it's essentially impossible to invest in technology without investing in AI which means its very hard to bet against AI in the tech industry. And that feels very, very dangerous.

No fan of Darth Cheeto, but that is simply not true. Cosby was deposed in a civil suit and admitted in his testimony to drugging women so he could have sex with them.

He totally did (see above). It is, in fact, why he is not currently in prison because, despite the DA granting him immunity for said testimony to remove his 5th amendment protections, that deposition was used against him in his criminal trial and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court vacated his conviction as a result.

Heh. I am, kind of. I'm not only a registered Republican, I'm a precinct officer. I've historically always voted Republican but got active in the party in 2016 to do what I could to undercut Trump and Trumpism. I remain active for that reason. I do not consider myself a Democrat but I have been voting straight-ticket Dem since 2018[*] and will as long as Trumpism controls the GOP, while taking what opportunities I can to argue against Trumpism from the inside of the party. Of course, it's vanishingly unlikely that I'll ever get elected to caucus above the county level, not unless I lie about my positions, which I won't do.

[*] In 2016 I voted for McMullin, on the slender thread of a hope that there would be an EC tie between Clinton and Trump and the GOP-controlled House would look for a third path since the GOP establishment really did not like Trump back then.

Unless the alien comes from a society that is a hive mind or run by a dictator, or unless the alien is stupid, they will realize that building and maintaining coalitions is essential. This is true even with a central committee structure and is absolutely undeniable in a democratic republic.

Somewhat. I think it's reasonable for an employer hiring a person with a degree to assume they come with a significant amount of knowledge in their degree field. But, beyond that, sure. I'm confused as to why you felt the need to post this reply, though, since I never claimed otherwise.

I agree, but I feel like I have to speak up here to defend Governor Cox a bit (I live in Utah). He's actually an intelligent and very reasonable guy, and as close to a thoughtful centrist as has any hope of getting elected to a statewide office in Utah. His position on trans rights just about cost him re-election, even though he really wasn't saying anything other than "Hey, we have to be careful here, these kids are suffering and doing the wrong thing could cause a lot more suicides" (Utah already has among the highest teen suicide rates in the nation, and the US has pretty high rates relative to the world). His "disagree better" campaign, while exactly what we need in this country, IMO, also raised a lot of GOP eyebrows in the state. Which is just stupid, but it is what it is.

Anyway, the point is that he has to pick his battles. He often signs legislation he disagrees with because he knows the GOP-dominated state legislature can and will override him if he vetos, and being overridden is politically costly. And if you think that's a cop-out, you should look at the field of competitors he had in the GOP primary, none of whom could be called thoughtful, reasonable or anything close to centrist.

I'd prefer someone the left of how Cox acts, but he's not only the best we've got, he's the best we're likely to get. And I strongly suspect that Cox would prefer to move significantly leftward (which would still leave him right of center, nationally), but he's an astute politician and politics is the art of the possible.

A few comments, in reverse order.

First, code violations are civil, not criminal, in every jurisdiction I've ever heard of. What state are you in? The only way they become criminal is if you refuse to comply for long enough that a judge finds you in criminal contempt. In this case, I'd be shocked (even assuming shutting off the emergency disconnect would get you a citation, which seems unlikely, see below) that the first ticket would simply be an order to turn it back on. From there if you refused to comply it would escalate to fines, then increasing fines, then a court order to turn it on and pay the fines.

Second, the purpose of codes like this is to make sure that the house is livable. I expect the code (if it actually says a grid connection is required) was written before self-generation was realistically feasible and just wasn't considered. Odds are a house that has plenty of electricity but is technically in violation wouldn't be cited, unless you sold the place and the new owner complained, and even then they'd probably just require you to pay for reconnecting it. Further, I expect that as long as your house is still physically connected, it would be in compliance so if you were cited a judge would throw it out.

Of course, you shouldn't take my word for it, but it's pretty easy to find the laws and codes online. I'm curious enough that if you tell me where you are, I might even look them up for you :-)

That said, there very well might be something the power company can complain about if you try to get service disconnected so you don't have to pay the monthly connection fees. There might be some law giving them the authority to issue citations, essentially for non-compliance with their contracts. In practice, what would probably happen if they have that power and you called to disconnect is that they'd just tell you "no". But I'd really be surprised if they complained as long as you kept the service and paid the basic monthly fees; from their perspective it just looks like you're paying them money for nothing.

Finally, not having an exterior emergency disconnect is a serious code violation from what I can find (NEC 230.85 (that link is from NY, but the code is national)), so you might already have a code violation. I guess it depends when that requirement was added to the code vs when your system was installed, but you said your system was just redone recently?