I think you make a very valid point: there are spaces where, for various reasons, rail isn't necessarily the best option and is too far to be viable. I'd emphasize that choice is the key winner, and that the introduction of EVs doesn't mean that ICE needs to disappear. We recently did a trip five hours away by train because the car would have necessitated sitting in traffic each way and then sorting out parking in a city where $30/spot/day is the standard (we ended up taking local cabs and local transit when viable).

I've indicated that I'm a fan of PHEVs and I know people that are getting 800KM+ per fill (Canada here) from a full tank. I believe that so-called "extended range" evs (an engine that powers an electrical system instead of a geared power train) might be another implementation of ICE that might help deliver on the promise of EVs without necessarily including a battery.

The theme is that technology is improving, and I think that there's a lot to be excited about, especially where choices are concerned. Faster charging, more availability of chargers, and the perfect marriage of use-case is overtaking the issues that plagued early models. Currently I think the biggest issue is vendor support lock-in, but that's not exclusive to EVs and applies to all new cars, but I digress; I hope that some of these technologies are able to support your own (and others) transportation needs while resulting in a net decrease in dependance on fossil fuels, even if it doesn't necessarily kill them entirely. I think it's fair to aspire to rendering fossil fuels as extinct as the dinosaurs they're derived from.

To be fair it was hidden in the content section of their post, which I read. It was a bit longer than the subject line though.

This assumes, of course, that technology can never get better, that market demand won't push for technology getting better, and that the lack of the means to efficiently reprocess previously processed battery cell material (i. e. lithium) means there will never be those means. It also assumes other energy solutions won't ever exist, and discounts the effect hybrid vehicles can have for short range municipal commuters who simply want to go from point A to point B and maybe drop the kids or the partner off on the way. And that set of expectations seems... unreal.

This take is absurd as me accusing you of forcing people to take cars. The person you're replying to is suggesting that more transportation options would be better for all. I support the move to EVs and PHEVs, but I realize there are use-cases for ICE. It's my hope that we get to a stage where they can be powered efficiently and cost is reduced to enable people to have the ability to choose to own some kind of EV, but we've taken trips by train in order to avoid the effort of driving 5+ hours to a destination (and have on one occasion driven 5000KM to get to another destination).

The ability to make choices is freedom.

We need to get away from having transportation lines that are exclusively tailored to cars. That doesn't mean destroying roads, but might include shaping policy around including busses, or perhaps even rail.

Microsoft would be the ones investigating how well windows can store data.

I can see it now: whereas in the past you'd have a support engineer and their manager working with the customer and standing by their word, we'll soon see a world where you're accepting an EULA for using a support bot disclaiming the support bot's interactions as the use of the software. Bonus points to companies who offer the support agent experience to customers for free, and then use the product of that interaction to gather and sell personal details.

What a time to be alive.

Is it much different than the people concern trolling that, unless they can take a 10,000KM road trip to go hunting, EVs are useless?
Here's the thing: EVs are perfectly suited for most day-to-day commuter trips. Unless you drive three+ hours to work and back every day, in which case you still have your petrol-based options. And some of those will be eventually outmodded by extended range and PHEVs for flexibility.
Ten years ago, an EV was a useful headache for a single person or a couple; charging was slow, standards were poor, and chargers were uncommon.
Five years ago, you'd start to see racks of chargers outside of certain malls and even airports.
As of last year, they're in many mall parking lots and can get you to 80% in the time it takes to find and eat a meal. And 80% can be about 400KM, depending on make and model.
There are grid considerations, sure. But to dismiss them as dead in the water even as the market and technology develops is wishful thinking. The biggest challenges with EVs right now are sensitivity to cold, repairability, and safety concerns with regards to batteries; it's still a new industry. But as new technology like solid state batteries take hold, and as we get a better idea of the maintenance profiles (i.e. oil changes, brakes, etc), we're finding that many of the problems are being addressed.
ICE vehicles aren't going anywhere tomorrow. But it's inevitable that EVs will displace them and relegate them to construction and hauling, and much like the horse, we won't do a mass culling, but we will wind up creating fewer of them.

Because a political leader has never used a current or upcoming event to retroactively justify unpopular or poor policy.

Tu quoque fallacy.

A rust developer asks for filesystem documentation. A C developer enters a rust presentation from left-field, and responds by calling the rust developer the purveyor of a new religion.

WHY ARE RUST DEVELOPER SOOOOO DRAMMMAATTIICCC??!?!?!!

Irony dies off-stage; C developer exits stage left; the fiefdom is saved.

Not to mention that you can run Teams in Linux as a native client.

I know that in my department, I won't be recommending Dell devices if they can't be trusted to support a remote-work arrangement.

He's already sold two NFT "trading card" sets. He (and Elon "DOGE" Musk) have a vested interest in the success of their Ponzi products; they're the upline.

If they buy Apple Records, they could produce a line of record players called the Apple McIntosh.

Well, y'see, by moving to this structure and realizing savings, the CEO was really the one who found those savings. So you see, the employees had comparatively little to do with it.

Imagine that you're now encouraged to eat your co-worker's lunches so that you can get a slice of a smaller bonus pool than when you were paid more and didn't rely on shafting people around the desk.