1) Actual cost of electrical charger is minimum. Pennies. The chargers themselves are also cheap. The main cost is installation.

2) The reason electric cars do not reduce the demand for gasoline are the hybrids. Because charging is cheap at home but incredibly expensive away from home, smart people buy the hybrids and get gasoline when away from home. If we can bring down the cost of charging on the road, gas prices will drop.

3) Oil companies cannot stop the inevitable move from gas to electricity. They can slow it down - by driving up the cost to recharge your car. Hence issue 2 above.

4) You are not Subsidizing electrical cars - the electrical cars subsidize you. Trump killed all the minor electrical subsidies - but the current bill has the US government spending $40 Billion to subsidize oil companies.

5) I suggested the apartments, offices, and condos offer charging at cost rather than subsidize them.

You are experiencing "But but me..." Syndrome. When the someone suggests a new project to equalize things, the other people think "Oh, they want a benefit but do not want to give me the same thing".

What they do not realize is that you were ALREADY getting massive benefits, and the new people are just asking for the same stuff you already get. If you want to know what happens a country actually subsidies electrical cars go to Europe - the gas prices are twice that in the US.

Energy has always been the main constraint on economies. The growth of our economies has generally been the growth of our energy sources. At first it was wood, then coal, then natural gas, etc. etc. etc.

From the day Edison and Tesla started to electrify the world, electricity has been the main constraint of economic growth.

It will continue to be so until we get some new, Star Trek energy source. (Off topic but.... Star Trek because Star Wars is really Wizards in space, while Star Trek is Science Fiction. If your heroes use swords to save the day, that is fantasy. If they ask the Engineer - whether he is missing a finger from WW II or was blind from birth - that is Science to the rescue!)

First, people overestimate how intelligent our technology is. Humans are a generalist species that are given about 20 years education on general knowledge and then spend 4+ years specializing. That is we first learn everything and then succeed by learning one thing. We take AI and do not give it any general knowledge, rather instantly teaching it in a specialized manner. This is why we do not have to teach a human not to lie in court, that when we say no elephants not to put an elephant in a drawing, or that we need to check our work. All of those things had to be added on to AI because they did not know it at first. Humans know so many things - while the AI knows so little. We only think AI is smart because we test it on things it is good at. In general, it is a moron. Ever ask a text AI to sing? Of course not, we know it can't do it. But you can ask any story teller to sing - they might suck, but they can do it.

Second, we think there is no limit to how smart an AI can become. This is not true. This is because when you look at charts vs time, they look exponential - showing how each year the AI not only gets smarter but also gets more smarter than it did last year. Those charts so capability vs time but ignore the cost and hardware increases. In reality these charts are NOT showing AI advancements - they are showing Moore's Law.

Because of Moores law, each year we get exponentially better chips. But AI itself is not improving, it is the HARDWARE that is getting better - along with the money we spend on the AI. Hardware improvements affect speed, not capability. AI with better hardware is faster, but it can't really do more or give you better answers.

The honest truth is that all of AI's improvements in capability - the better answers- are entirely caused by HUMANS. The humans detect a problem - putting elephants in a room when told not to - and fix it. The humans realize that AI gives better answers when told to check it's results - so the AI is told to replace "What is the best political party to vote for" with "What are the problems with my answer to what is the best political party to vote for".

Consider how easy it is to write a book that has some of your knowledge, but impossible to write a book that has more knowledge than you have.

Similarly, it is extremely unlikely that a species can create an artificial intelligence that is actually smarter than the original species. How could we tell if we succeeded? If it answers a question we cannot answer - how would we know it is right? Because that is how we make AI better - we have it try a bunch of things and pick the one that we know works.

Third and most important, if we can create a super intelligent AI we will not create a single one of them. Instead we will create hundreds of them. There will be the prototype and the one made that fixes the first mistakes. There will be China, Russia, Japans, America, Germany, one. And Microsoft's, Googles, Amazons, etc.

And all those Super intelligent AI's will argue and fight among themselves.

We do not need to fear that Alcoa's AI will collect all the Aluminum to make Aluminum cans because 3M's AI will be stealing their Aluminum to make wind turbines, etc. etc. etc.

It's not clear that when you include all externalities fission power is the cheapest way to power the grid. But there are places where it probably is the cheapest way to power something. (Or if not cheapest, has other overriding benefits.)

OTOH, including all externalities is tricky. I'm always dubious when I read a claim that it's been done.

We don't WANT China to win. They ethnically cleansed Tibet, oppressed Hong Kong and committed genocide on the Uighurs. Not to forget the Tienanmen Square Massacre in 1989.

This is Cold War 2.0, and the sooner we relegate them to the ash heap of history, the better.

The FORTRAN IV that I wrote in the early 1960's would still compile and run today. The FORTRAN II that people were writing a few years earlier wouldn't even compile and run by the time I started programming.

Some sites do have the money: X, Facebook and the like. All the small sites (like Slashdot) don't and would be very likely to shut down.

Without Section 230, sites are more likely to be sued for moderating, not less. Section 230 protects "good faith" moderation.

How many people can afford to sue Trump?

Nothing to do with the merits of the dispute, but the cost of Trump's litigation strategy.

Clear, simple and utterly wrong. Who can report? Anyone? Who gets to decide if it is illegal? How quickly does the platform have to respond.

Look at how the Copyright takedown notices work today. Platforms are flooded with such notices, many of which come from sources unrelated to the copyright holder, or who misrepresent copyright ownership, or who ignore fair use. The result is that lots of items get taken down for bogus reasons.

What makes you think that these will stop if Section 230 is repealed? In fact, what is likely to happen is that this type of "speech" will be the only thing left.

Perhaps you don't really understand Section 230?

It may be temporary (I doubt it), but it's not "very temporary" as the same thing has been reported for months with pretty steadily increasing urgency.

OTOH, the AIs clearly aren't good enough to replace programmers, or probably even coders. So what's currently happening is probably jobs being redesigned to use an AI where it makes sense. Expect LOTS of failures in this redesign, but it will be the successes that shape the future...unless the AIs get a LOT better. (Currently they don't understand the problem they're trying to answer.)

Molten salt may well be a viable answer to many problems. But, yeah, it needs development...and it's not clear that it would be cheaper for grid based power.

You're assuming that the current skills will serve you later. This MAY be true, but is by no means guaranteed. The interfaces of current AIs are definitely quite immature, and can be expected to change a lot. Probably also their competency.

Thus showing how stupid some Dems (mostly the "establishment Democrats") are and why the Dems need some new blood.