If there's cellphone signal enough for voice, there's enough to run an app that is designed to handle the low bandwidth.

But now you're shifting from Colorado to Canada. See what I mean by constant retreat?

Besides, like I said, I drove through the mountains of western Canada and always had enough cell signal. And caching is still a thing. GPS still works as long as one can see 3 satellites, and some can use the EU and RU versions to improve accuracy even more.

Worst case, Starlink is deploying cellphone technology, so we'll have signal from satellites soonish.

You are suggesting quite a few things, except you don't like to actually say directly what it is that you want to happen. Here is one thing you said: "Elon Musk should be a wealthy man, no doubt about it but a trillionaire or hell even a $100B is a failure of our economy, our culture, our society or our politics." - 100B is not Musk anymore, it's more than Musk, who I consider to be a con artist.

What you are implying to calling 100B owner a failure of economy and culture and society and politics is that it should be impossible for some reason for a person to accrue enough ownership of private resources to be at that level. It is your inadequacies that are showing here and it is your word play that we are debating. What you are suggesting is oppression and tyranny, nothing less, which is what is required for a person not to be able to accrue any amount of wealth regardless of how it is obtained.

How about this: "I mean, he does. He also still is one person with 24 hours a day, does he actually provide enough productivity to justify tens of millions every day?" - nobody has to justify anything, if they are able to accrue some wealth beyond your imagination does not make it wrong that a person should be able to do so.

To this I have already answered: "Explain this (i am fully anticipating Libertarian-Randian gobbledygook)" - obviously a large amount of accumulated wealth is represented by a business and this business clearly benefits the society much more than the individual who runs it, otherwise the company wouldn't be valuable enough for you to pay attention how wealthy the owner of this company becomes.

This: "Everything you said would equally apply if he was worth $1B as it does $1000B so what does he need the extra 999B? His lifestyle changes 0%. He can still own and run companies." - implies that a person shouldn't be able to have ownership in a company that is growing in value, Musk or anyone else. So if you build a company that becomes so valuable people invest into it enough that its market share, its profits are so large that the value exceeds 100B (on paper, doesn't matter). If you are the single largest owner of the stock in this company your shares go above and beyond 1B.

You are pretending that you are not suggesting confiscation (oppression by the voting majority) yet what else are you suggesting? Be clear, what are your demands and goals? I already see the reasons, jealousy and ideology with a strange belief that a person shouldn't be able to own something of serious value for some reason.

This: "And I would ask just the same what the unhealthy fixation on defending the massive wealth inequality?" - I am FOR wealth inequality, it's the only thing that actually motivates people to move forward with business ideas in the first place. If wealth equality was the goal, nobody would be ruining their lives trying to run a business.

This: " I'll guess if I ask for the alternative you'll point to "communism" and I will just say you are not a serious person with a serious position. Like I said, Randian nonsense." - you are the one bringing up communism and Randian ideas, whatever, you are fixated on the nomenclature.

This: "You say you want to "protect private property" as if what I am suggesting eliminates private property in any fashion." - of course you are. You are suggesting this exact thing, you wouldn't be happy until there wouldn't be "wealth inequality". This requires that people cannot own things cannot operate things as they see fit, cannot go beyond some artificial number that is stuck in your head. You think 1B is plenty and 100B is too much, whatever that is all about. In reality it's all garbage. A person who made a billion dollar company can use the money that he makes to start more companies and eventually go much further than 1B dollars and this bugs the shit out of you because you are on a mission.

I am 100% certain you were the one bringing up communism, I was not. I am against destruction of private property rights, which is what you are suggesting.

what is unsatisfying to you? I am absolutely against majority oppressing a minority via government intervention, a minority in this case is people with more money than most The tyranny of majority leads to redistribution of resources. Communism is not even supposed to have a government. As someone born in the former USSR half a century ago I can point at that system and absolutely refuse it. I can also point at any oppressive system and refuse it. You are proposing an oppressive system, oppression by the force of government backed by the tyranny of majority. I am against it, it leads to destruction of freedoms, economic freedoms being the only ones that matter.

inequality is the resulr of ability to own property and I want this to be protected regardless how much property because I have seen the alternative and it is misery.

Man, it's just constant retreat with you, isn't it?
You're seriously saying Alma doesn't have cellphone signal? I've lived in a smaller town and still had signal.

Generally speaking, those installing EV charging stations want to be able to bill for it. Which means that the station itself needs connectivity, even if it doesn't need to be much. They need a big fat pipe of electricity as well.
Sounds like an excellent spot for a cell phone tower, if one isn't already in range.

Besides that, I managed to drive from Alaska to Florida, through Canada, without ever being out of cellphone signal.

Worst case, the app developers are aware that you might be out of signal occasionally. Therefore they cache information.

What is this unhealthy fixation on what someone is "worth"? It is not a billion tons of gold, it is not a quintillion tons of grains. It is a fiction, a fleeting number on paper that signifies current valuation of a business. Musk does not have a trillion dollars under his mattress. Not even 2 billion.

I think Musk is a con artist, but why is it difficult to wrap your head around a person benefiting less from his billions than the society? Society gets to use these billions in many ways more than the person himself. Society gets the products made by the businesses that are valued at billions, society gets the jobs and paychecks from all of this money. What does the person get except for a headache of dealing with the norms and rules and taxes imposed by the society upon his business? He really doesn't eat much more than the next guy, though his meals will be more expensive because they are cooked by some private chefs. But the cost of the food, chefs, housing, airplanes, whatever is negligible compared to the value of the company that society gets to enjoy. Even just the trading of the stock market allows people to have something to invest into, there are jobs, there are products, then there are various contracts required to maintain this business, so there are other side businesses that rely on the gigantic companies owned by the billionaire.

Again, a billionaire personally can use maybe a few hundred million dollars, maybe even a couple of billion (if he buys a couple of yachts and a few mansions). The gain to the guy is completely negligible compared to the gain to the society. It is like infrastructure in itself, that's what these huge businesses are. To say that this is 'Libertarian-Randian gobbledygook' is simply to use a personal attack in place of an argument.

But again, I am fully convinced Musk is a gigantic fraud, running his empire almost exclusively on vaporware.

Women do not want children in more numbers than ever because they are not marrying, because they follow each other on instagram and other mass hysteria sites where they promote hedonistic living to each other and yes, much of it requires resources and time that otherwise would be allocated to rearing children. Unmarried women rely on the government systems that women (and womenized men) have promoted and voted for over decades. This promoted disconnect between generations, grandparents and other family members are not involved in helping with the kids as previously. Two income household means women are working (because of inflation caused by the women as a voting block people are forced to pay insane percentage of earnings as taxes). Taxes used to subsidise classes of people, especially single women require so much more money that women im families have no choice but to work. Their husbands' earnings are more than halfed by the taxes, so need 2 people to work where previously 1 would have sufficed.

So women as a voting block created the environment of high taxation and subsidization, this in turn requires that more women entered the workforce than ever before. None of this is child friendly, women as a block are truly pushing towards childless society. This is self defeating, the people with more children will inherit the world, which will roll back most of these anti child policies. This will require a demographic collapse first, which is coming within a few decades. Within just 2-3 decades most of the world that has anti child policies will be very old of-course. The age of single childless people will cause an age of single old people. Their policies will die off with them giving apace and rise of various fundamentalist cultures, for example Islam. The only hope is that Israel also keeps their births up and somewhat balances out the Islamists. If not, then the few remaining non muslims will feel very lonely on this planet indeed.

If you have a cell phone, you have mobile internet. Even if you're just using it as a hotspot for a laptop or tablet.

In any case, those purchasing EVs are overwhelmingly fine with using an app. Or the in-dash infotainment system that can do the same thing. Plug in where you want to go, it finds a route including chargers. Question: Do you use google maps?

Most people don't need to find EV charging stations, only those with EVs need to be able to, and they all generally have cellphones.

And why would they need an attendant? They're fine with being open at night. Gas stations only need attendants because of the large quantities of flammable liquids stored on location. Even with that, I've seen the occasional gas station that, late at night, doesn't have anybody and it is pay at pump only. But they get most of their profit from the attached convenience store, so they need an employee for that, to make money.

Now, there have been some problems with people stealing the charge cables for the copper in them, because current doesn't flow until the car and charger have verified the connection and negotiated charging stuff, so they're safe enough for unattended use.

But said people have also discovered that said lots tend to have very good cameras and end up being caught.

It isn't so much that it "flowed", it is that aluminum has a greater coefficient of thermal expansion than copper. So it would expand more when it heated up. This was exasperated by the greater gauge of sufficiently rated cable or the installation of the same gauge as copper, insufficient due to it's slightly lower conductivity, causing it to heat up even more.
Over time, this could allow the connection to work its way loose, at some point leading to higher resistance at that point and thus more heat, and even sparking, leading to fires.
Modern connectors address this a number of ways, but the primary way I've seen is to make the connection a little springlike, it doesn't even have to look like a spring at first glance - the expansion isn't that much, after all. Some are even "self tightening", in that they'll tend to pull the wire in rather than let it loosen. Very clever designs that generally don't take anything more than the old connectors. In addition, in wire gauges large enough to be stranded, the very stranding helps with handling the expansion.
As I understand it, when installed to code, the aluminum wiring was safe, the problem was that the code was too stringent for the electricians used to working with copper, and they'd use stuff rated for copper and not aluminum all over.

Image and video generation will contain product placement.

And text responses too.

"But wait, there's more!"

You see gas stations because they have giant price signs and were built long before phones, apps, and incar navigation. They grabbed the most obvious, highvisibility locations decades ago, and we’re all trained to look for them.
EV chargers don’t work that way. Companies installing them know that almost every EV driver is using an app or the car’s builtin route planner to find chargers. Because of that, they don’t need huge signs or prime corner lots. They can be tucked behind a restaurant, at the edge of a parking lot, or a little down an access road. They’re easy to miss if you’re not specifically looking for them.
That’s why you don’t “see” them even though they’re there. I know of several near me, but one of them I only know about because the app pointed me to it. If I were just driving by, I’d never notice it.
As for Alma, 4 Lads Ct has coffee shops and a small park to stretch your legs in. Assortment of shops as well.

Depends on the location and how busy it is. In a lot of places they do not care because there is plenty of capacity. There are a few spots that will charge an idle fee once your car is done, but those are mostly in congested areas.

One simple trick is to set the charge limit to 100 percent. If your car can finish in 20 minutes, that means it was already around 70 to 80 percent when you plugged in, which also means you probably did not need to charge much in the first place.

For a typical 300 mile EV:
20 percent to 80 percent takes about 15 to 25 minutes.
20 percent to 100 percent takes about 35 to 45 minutes because the last 20 percent is slower.
That extra time gives you a better window for a sit down meal.

So etiquette is basically this:
If the site is quiet, finish your meal and move the car afterward.
If the site is busy or has idle fees, either set the limit to 100 percent so the session lasts longer and plan to move the car when the car finishes charging.

Long term, the real solution is more charging stalls. We are already seeing stations built with more charging posts than the site can power at full speed at the same time. The idea is that some cars will be tapering or done, which frees up power for new arrivals. And when chargers are placed in restaurant parking lots, the business wants you to stay. They are not going to care if your car sits at 100 percent for a while.

If you are sitting down for an hour anyway, a slightly slower charge is easier on the battery.

Hmm, let's check:

Big Sur
Monterey
Ventura
Sonoma
Sequoia
Tahoe

No, no, you're totally right, this has everything to do with McDonalds as some kind of appeasement to Darth Cheeto rather than referencing some location in California. Well spotted!