You're supposed to take a break every two hours anyways, that can include a meal, snack, and hydration.
If you stock up and have a case of drinks, that is why I suggested a walk as an alternative.

They work for the occasional "blue moon" charging, I think. It'd be like having a house that is solar + battery also having a generator for "just in case", allowing the house to still have power during that week long storm front, an inverter failure, or even just the annual family visit where the place has 10X the normal people there.
Especially if the genset is already there for things like transmission line failures.
IE use the genset to allow EVs to get there to begin with, then upgrade to solar one they're a regular enough occurrence for that to make sense.

Sheep are being used specifically for solar systems
They keep the vegetation down while producing marketable products themselves.

I don't generally consider bathroom breaks, basic food and drinks to be entertainment myself. If you consider modern 70% charging times (From ~15% to ~85%), that's about the mandatory 15 minutes break period mandated in various places for continued good performance.

By the time somebody has plugged in their car, walked to and finished visiting the restroom including washing hands, gotten a drink and a snack, and walked back (actual order optional), it's quite likely that around 15 minutes has passed.

Maybe include a walking path or something around these stations, get a little exercise in? I know I feel better about long drives with regular walking breaks.

That was phrased badly. What I meant is that you can keep multiple versions of a photo, used for different purposes.

If you're doing things right, watermarking/editing a photo doesn't destroy the original. The original goes into evidence, the watermarked is posted to the public. That way, there's evidence of the source of the picture, even if it is scraped and separated from the website/page.

In physical terms, it'd be like writing the details of the photograph on the back, like what we used to do with traditional developed photographs.

I think that you're mixing up that a photo can be used for multiple purposes.
Basically, the original unedited photo goes into the police report/file for evidentiary purposes.
The altered photo - probably also resized and compressed to be easier on bandwidth, is what is posted for publicity purposes, where there isn't a police report also attached, where there's a high probability of it becoming disconnected from the website.
The version of the photo intended for facebook or whatever shouldn't ever be presented in court.

I can see plenty of reasons to add the department logo, to remind people of where that particular bust came from.
What it doesn't need to be, what it shouldn't be, is something that is trying to look like an actual part of the original image. It should look like a computer logo on a photo, not an actual fabric badge pasted to the wall.

The original photo is evidence; it was still intact. The edited photo with the police badge watermark was to be a publicity tool, not evidence.

Though I'll state that you don't even need layers for this - just open the .jpg or whatever you got from the evidence in an email or whatever in paint, save as a new file, paste in the watermark, save again.

Yeah. Even here in Iceland, which isn't exactly a solar paradise, these would be really useful in some places. Though realistically your best option would be a mix of solar and wind.

I think we're forgetting the other two possibilities in this grid: "solar mine" and "strip farm".

The... trees?

If you're annoyed by jet skis, I would strongly recommend not living on the shores of Lake Havasu. Also, yes, it does take way more energy to get there than it does to jet ski around while you're there. Also, there are electric jet skis.

Do you drive long distances without stopping to get food and drinks?

If so: please stop that.

My language does reflect the new reality. By your own admission EVs are a minority.

Would you say that white people should be called "normal people" in front of a bunch of black people in the US, because the black people are a minority?

You talk about EVs like they're some obscure just-invented thing. They're not esoteric.

We're not talking weight, we're talking wind resistance.

You very much are talking both. For an extreme case, with freight trucks, aero is only like 1/3rd to 1/2 of aero losses. And they have aerodynamically awful shapes and are on very low rolling resistance tyres (though also have very heavy cargos... but also very large frontal areas).

For a passenger vehicle / truck towing a trailer, it will really depend a lot on the vehicle and trailer. It's not even some simple additive process, the aerodynamics is complex; it's actually possible to even lower Cd by towing a trailer in some cases (though not usually). And if by definition of the topic at hand (discussion was of a "big" trailer), then you're talking something like similar to the vehicle's mass (F-150 can tow up to 3 times its mass). Which - if on the same tyres - then doubling your mass equals doubling the rolling resistance. The ratio between rolling and aero resistance at highway speeds varies on speed, vehicle, tyres, weather, etc, but saying 60:40 aero:rolling is probably reasonable at normal "towing" speeds (somewhat lower than drivers without trailers) and averaging across weather conditions. Doubling the rolling drag increases the total drag by 40%. If your cross-section stays the same (again, this depends on the vehicle and the trailer), the Cd would need to rise by 67% to keep the ratio between rolling and aero the same. Which is a really big Cd rise. Now, if you're starting with a very aero vehicle and have a very unaero trailer, sure, you might pull that off and then some (but remember that it's not additive, the airflow is complex). Or if it's a low car and a high trailer, again, same story. But to treat rolling as negligible is just not right. Trailers add a lot of rolling drag, amounts that very much are relevant.

First off, "normal car", please. 20% of all new cars sold worldwide are EVs now. Update your language to reflect the new reality.

Secondly, that's just not true. Towing a heavy trailer with a truck will see its MPG drop by like half. The rule of thumb is that every 100 pounds you have a truck tow drops its fuel economy by about 2%. 2500lbs = 50%. That's a very rough rule, but it gives a sense of what's normal.