Yeah, Na-ion is not for cars.

I vacation around the US in an EV all the time, and it's really not an issue. Not unless your vacation travel is of the "pee-in-a-bottle-no-stopping" sort. If you aren't hardcore about minimizing travel time, making stops for decent meals, and stops for bathroom breaks and leg stretching, you'll find that you spend little if any time waiting for the car to charge. What you do is drive for 2-3 hours, then stop for 15 minutes for bathroom (and charging), then drive for 2-3 hours, then stop for an hour for lunch (and charging), then drive for 2-3 hours, then stop for 15 minutes for bathroom (and charging), then drive for 2-3 hours, then stop for an hour for dinner (and charging), then drive for 2-3 hours, then stop for the night (and charging).

Basically, you just make sure that whenever you stop for biological needs, you do in a place you can plug in. This is quite easy to do.

You do want to pick hotels with chargers to overnight. If you don't, then you'll probably have to 30-45 minutes in the morning to charge (during breakfast?).

I've done several thousand miles of road trips with an EV in the western US, where distances are long and cities are far apart. It works fine.

You actually can't in the US, not on the interstates, anyway. Tesla has the US interstates covered, with chargers every ~75 miles. Sometimes this means there's a Supercharger out in the middle of the desert, sure. There's always a gas station/convenience store there, too. Also, you don't actually have to think about when/where you're going to charge. The car's navigation system tells you where you need to stop and for how long.

If you get off the Interstates, you can find larger distances between L3 chargers. In practice I've never found it to be a problem, though.

What EV has a transmission? They have a reducing gear, but AFAIK, that's it.

options are nice, but for the $8 (?) credit for not having a simple AM radio, and with each such being a special order, I suspect it would have cost less to just build them all with radios, and let the aftermarket folks toss them . . .

Applesoft, TRS-80 Level 2, and most of the other built in were version 2 of Microsoft BASIC (or the 6502 port of that).

Until version 5, iirc, memory was searched serially, rather than using a table.

So jump to a high line number for setup, then back to midrange for general execution, with frequently used subroutines at low line numbers.

Version 4.52, then later 5, were common on CP/M.

BASICA/GWBASIC was pretty much an 8086 port of 5 with extensions.

>and also headache-causing, horribly obfuscated code in any language.

"A good programmer can write bad FORTRAN in *any* language!"

imagine a world in which 70% to 80% of the political *middle* in the house was choosing a speaker, the rules committee, and chairmen, shutting out the Dingbat Caucus on the democrats' left, and the Arson Coalition on the republican left.

Oh, wait, we don't have to imagine it--it worked this way for most of US history, for which party line votes were the exception, not the rule.

This wouldn't be nearly so funny if GM hadn't been sued *for* making radios standard equipment, and forced to provide the "delete for credit" option to "protect" third party radio manufacturers . . .

> I mean, who buys new thermostats every 15 years?

I'll take "Honeywell Customers" for $200.

Oh, and try *reading* the license on their smart ones . . . it basically says "we can do anything we want with your data, and disclose it to whomever we choose, especially if they're going to pay us."

viing for puns, are we?

As I said, you clearly don't have children, and therefore have no idea what you're talking about. In general I'm opposed to arguments of the form "You're not an X so you can't comment", but when it comes to raising kids, it's just the truth. No one who hasn't done it has any idea what it's really like.

Doesn't matter, because if you had children you'd know that no one is capable of being sufficiently attentive.

As a Googler... I think this comment hits the mark, far more than any of the others.

It is not, not even then. You'd need at least three parents: One to go to work, one to stay with the kid, one to cover for the second when they have to do something other than watching the kid (clean the house, do the laundry, use the bathroom, etc.). Oh, sure, you can try to put the kid in a safe environment while you do stuff, but many young children are shockingly good at finding ways to get into stuff they're not supposed to get into, and do it far faster than you would expect.

A team of nannies can do it.

People used to live in the middle of a village of other people who watched out for their neighbors' kids when their parents had to take their eyes off of them. And kids used to die. A lot. Far more than we'd consider acceptable today.

And not just one. KIds vary widely and it's not uncommon for parents who've only dealt with a single child to assume that all kids are like that one. Usually adding a second kid is enough to open their eyes when they realize that none of what worked on the first kid works with the second and vice versa. Occasionally parents get two that are very similar and don't learn this until they have a third, or until grandkids come along, or other close exposure.