I've done it for most of my career, probably 20 of 35 years, including the near-decade I was a manager -- and I was WFH full-time, not half-time (1000 miles from the office). I did try to get onsite for a week every couple of months. Making it work requires a lot of overcommunication, but it can be done.

Nonsense.

Oh, there are some forces slowing us down, especially the orange man, but even if all of those forces went away or even reversed course 180 degrees there's no way we'd make "an immediate switch". It would and will take many years. It's complicated, there are a lot of moving parts, and we'll get to a point (CA is already there on a lot of days) where renewables frequently have to be curtailed because there isn't enough storage to shift that generation to times of low renewable generation.

Indeed. Case in point immediately above this post.

Indeed. Though, total capacity matters, too. I had a 2014 Tesla that only had ~200 miles of range, and road-tripping with that car was moderately painful. It was especially bad in areas where Superchargers were further apart and when there was a lot of elevation increase from one to the next, because it meant that I often had to charge to full to be able to reach the next. The smaller battery meant a lower miles per minute figure even at the best charge rate, but if you have to charge to full you're also waiting through the abysmal charge rate of the worst miles-per-minute part of the charge cycle.

I don't think you can really boil it down to just one figure. Though if I had to, "miles per minute while charging from 10% to 60%" is probably the best.

Absolutely wrong. A 1C battery is a 1C battery, regardless of how large it is. Different chemistries and configurations can affect this, but size absolutely does not, assuming the charger is capable of delivering power at the max rate the pack can take it at peak flow -- but 350-400 kW chargers are the norm.

Also, learn how to post. All it takes is trivial HTML markup knowledge.

Name-calling, especially when coupled with calling me clueless while demonstrating your own complete lack of understanding, earns you a Foe, which means it's unlikely I'll ever see your posts again.

Not really. You size the power to what the batteries can take at the fastest phase of charging. 350 kW is the norm for fast charging now. A 50 kWh 1C battery that charges at 4C when low (meaning that if it could sustain that rate for the whole recharge it would charge empty to full in 1/4 hour), would max out at around 200 kW. 3C is a more typical max rate, so 150 kW.

Does not matter what the pilots seeing them knew about the projects.

With full speed they are hardly 2x as fast as a passenger plane. The F-117 was not even that fast. And: they look like air planes. They do not look like "strange objects".

And fighter jets already existed. So they only would look "strange", when you can visualy identfy strange details. No one would throw a second glance at a fighter jet too far away to identify with naked eyes, but that behaves like an ordinary fighter jet: flying fast in one direction.

You charge all of the cells in a battery in ()parallel(?), so unless your input power is limited by something,
The correct word would be simultaneously. As plenty of them are chained in serials, and do not charge parallel.

charge time is dominated by how long it takes a single cell to go from empty to full. if one wants to nitpick, that is correct.

However the battery is full when the amount of nominal charge came from the plug into the battery. Ooops.

So a smaller battery charges much faster, as the amount of energy to put into it, is much smaller.

Hence: the trend to smaller lighter batteries, that in turn support slightly lighter engines/brakes and an over all frame, and in the end lead to just minimal range loss, but charge in half the time than the previous battery generation. With similar driving performance as in speed, reliability etc.

You morons are not even utterly uneducated how stuff works, hence your stupid idea about "all cells charge in parallel" - you are also completely out of the loop how stuff works on the other side of the planet.

You charge all of the cells in a battery in parallel, so unless your input power is limited by something,
The correct word would be simultaneously. As plenty of them are chained in serials, and do not charge parallel.

charge time is dominated by how long it takes a single cell to go from empty to full. if one wants to nitpick, that is correct.

However the battery is full when the amount of nominal charge came from the plug into the battery. Ooops.

So a smaller battery charges much faster, as the amount of energy to put into it, is much smaller.

Hence: the trend to smaller lighter batteries, that in turn support slightly lighter engines/brakes and an over all frame, and in the end lead to just minimal range loss, but charge in half the time than the previous battery generation. With similar driving performance as in speed, reliability etc.

You morons are not even utterly uneducated how stuff works, hence your stupid idea about "all cells charge in parallel" - you are also completely out of the loop how stuff works on the other side of the planet.

Ebikes are most certainly not more effective.
Low efficent battery.
Low efficient engine.
No aerodynamics what so ever.

And: the few which can actually do regenerating braking are perhaps a hand full.

To know that, you do not even need to look at specific numbers.
You are indeed an idiot.

Most countries a company can do nothing about unionizing ... unions already exist, people just join them and from 30 employees on people have the right to install a "Betriebsrat" a mini union, and there is nothing any manager can do about that, except: managing the company in a way that people are not urged to install such a mini union.

Bonus point, you could put 20 or 30 mini golf curses under the solar cells!

From the summary:

The small battery pack also means faster charging times

That's not how this works. Charging time is unrelated to battery size, except that in a given amount of time a larger battery can take in more energy. You charge all of the cells in a battery in parallel, so unless your input power is limited by something, charge time is dominated by how long it takes a single cell to go from empty to full. The number of cells (i.e. the size of the battery) is only relevant to how much power your charging system needs to deliver so that all of the cells can charge as quickly as possible.

There's a little variability among chemistries, but to a first approximation, the Li-ion cells we use today all take about 1 hour to fill from empty, when given power at the highest rate they can handle without sustaining damage. And they can take it faster when they're close to empty.

If you want to minimize the amount of time it takes to add X miles of range, what you want isn't a smaller battery, it's a larger battery. Suppose you want to add 50 miles of range in two minutes. Assuming 165 Wh/mile, you need to add 8.25 kWh. In two minutes a low battery (say, 20% SoC) can add about 10% of its capacity, so to get 50 miles in two minutes at the assumed mileage, you need an 82.5 kWh battery, and a 250 kW charger.

I'm sure Tesla has done the math carefully and weighed size and cost against range and charge times for their expected usage pattern and determined that 50 kWh is the right balance. But a smaller battery doesn't reduce charging times. For a given demand profile, a smaller battery increases charge time and a larger battery decreases charge time.

The point is that they spend it. When money is spent, it doesn't evaporate. It induces work. That work produces value. Then the money is spent again, and again, until it winds up in the pockets of the rich. The rich are sitting on historically unprecedented cash reserves, and interest rates are high so people aren't borrowing it from the banks where the funds are held. Therefore the money is just sitting around doing nothing, and not inducing any work. The proposal is to pry this money out of the coffers of the rich and put it back into the economy where it induces more work to be done. Isn't that what you love? Why would you be against more work being done? The money will only get spent about five times before the rich get it back again, which is the other thing you seem to love, so you get everything you want.

What we observe will always be somewhere in the middle, because if it gets to the worst case, we won't be here to observe it.

If the numbers get too small, the species becomes genetically nonviable due to insufficient genetic base. And TPTB won't want to "spend enough" (allocate a large enough percentage of total resources) to prevent that from happening because it might interfere with the overwhelming economic superiority upon which their internal self-worth is based.

Or, they stripped out disregard to get their AI to not accept instructions to disregard prior instructions, but did it in the wrong place so it removed it from the search terms.