You know, this is almost like one of those equations where you have a factor, but as you work through it, the factor is neutralized, turning out to not matter in the end?

Remember how I said "If getting non-infected people to wear masks despite the minimal benefits gets the infected to, it is worth it."

I mean, if them wearing masks makes the potentially infected maskless uncomfortable to the point that they put on the mask, then wearing it is actually still protecting them, just from secondary effects.

Plus, while the effects are minimal for a cheap reusable mask compared to a N95, they still protect the wearers some.

Everybody wearing their masks thus does indeed reduce the chances of them getting COVID.

I'm still going to disagree - masks helped reduce the spread. That's very much public health, because public health worries less about the individual and more the group, the "public" part. Fewer people infected is good, thus not theater.

Theater was things like the people wearing masks with holes cut in them.

From a public health standpoint, keeping asymptomatic carriers from infecting others is very much NOT theater. Anything that reduces the infection or spread rate is an effective control. Whether it is cost effective is a different matter, but cloth masks are cheap.
If getting non-infected people to wear masks despite the minimal benefits gets the infected to, it is worth it.
And COVID doesn't have spores.

We don't 'spin' scientific stuff as a certainty without decades or even centuries of work. We can be very highly expectant, but we have those 95 and 99% certainty bars for a reason.
If you took it as a certainty, that is on you and not the scientists. Best we had was "by what we know right now" and that changed over time with both knowledge and supply availability.
And things like wearing masks was a public health issue. It is like forcing you to have liability insurance to drive, to protect others. Why? The cloth masks didn't really protect you from being infected if you wandered around infected people without masks, but if an infected person wore a mask it really reduced the rate of them infecting others.

(And autocorrupt tried to change with into without. Why?)

Thinking one this further, it is still an observed effect in the article. You have people believing the 'comforting lies' because science is complex, in favor of simple pleads by non-scientists looking to profit by selling horse ivermectin or bleach enemas.

Makes sense to me, I've seen a lot of people distrusting all the COVID science, mostly by making statements like 'They said the vaccine would protect us!', implying that 'Science' told them that it would be 100% effective with 0% chance of side effects.
When more realistically it'd produce something like "vaccine reduced infections by 95%(+-2%, 95% certainty) in the test group 8 weeks after dosage."
Then pile on literally hundreds of studies looking at various other aspects and sub groups.

I'd imagine that they aren't turning off all the lights on the truck, so somebody looking should easily see it coming from more than 450 meters away, because the distance to SEE a light emitting object is drastically further than the distance you can see non-emitting objects illuminated by light you're emitting yourself.
Looking, the trucks seem to have all the standard lights.

Explain it. Especially don't give reading assignments that don't actually address what you're talking about.

That's the problem. I DO understand. You haven't tweaked me properly apparently to make me state it. Your explanation of segments is very lacking.

I mean, this all started with me merely disagreeing that gas stations are a 1:1 swap, and I think even you've come to the conclusion that that's correct. I'd never dispute that a lot of gas station locations would be good EV charging locations as well.

Consider that I've stated a number of differences that I see for market segmentation - there's all sorts of different models possible with charging that wasn't possible, or at least practical, with gasoline.

It's nearly 100% certain it's 12 gauge wiring on a 20A circuit.
The presence of 15A outlets doesn't actually mean much, all 15A convenience outlets are actually rated for 20A as well.
I can never say it never happens, because, well, my brother's an electrician and the stuff he regularly finds...

Any condo or apartment would normally be better off running a circuit from basically the service entrance, not individual apartments. Now, "Apartments" covers a lot, from the converted house I once lived in for a bit, to skyscrapers, to even almost converted hotels with parking out front.

Well, there you'd obviously want to pull new wire, but that isn't actually normally all that big of a deal. If you want multiple charging spots, which you probably should for an apartment, it becomes a bigger deal, but it also becomes a question of attracting tenants at some point.

That said, I think you've misunderstood something from your own link. "Innovators" and "Early Adopters" add up to 16% of the market. We're currently at ~7.4% of new cars sold being EVs, of cars on the road, only 1.4% are EV. So we're very much still in the "early adopter" stage, though the percentages can easily vary. I think that my estimates will hold well into "Early Majority", depending on how you look at it, with the number of EVs sold hitting 50%, or cars on the road reaching 50% roughly a decade after that.
If EVs want to continue taking over from ICE, of course infrastructure will need to expand to support them, from charging points to the very grid. AI is currently stressing the grid more, crazily enough, and EVs represent a massive opportunity for load shifting, so the naysayers saying the grid can't handle the extra load are very mistaken, but more generation will be needed, and if it ends up being mostly solar, it could become more beneficial to charge during the day, on average, which means encouraging work centers to install chargers.

Remember how we were talking about different market segments needing different solutions, different price points and such? It's an option, especially where somebody doesn't need the extra amps, like a limited commute, retiree, and such, and where either the service or wiring would be prohibitive.

And what do you think I was talking about? You finally said what I was trying to get at - the laggards are, besides those just too conservative to change (like my mom still having a home phone), the ones who are going to have the most complex and expensive times switching. The late majority can be those where it's just a touch more complex and therefore expensive, needing some technology development to be truly superior to ICE. The apartment dwellers and such. But we have some adoption even in the early innovation zone, seeing chargers installed at some buildings. It'll spread.

The real question then would be whether or not the tunnel full of Teslas could move a significant number of that rush. If it can, no problem.

If not, TWO tunnels would pretty much double capacity, still probably be cheaper, the Teslas could theoretically be Taxis when not used for tunnel stuff, while still being cheaper than actual subways in the USA (our procurement for them being utterly broken).

That they don't build buses NOW does not mean that they can't in the future. I've seen some concept art and preliminary design work. Basically specification stage stuff, but it's very doable.

And yes, they'd need to be custom to fit in the current tunnels, but that's why I said putting them on top of a Tesla sled.

The trade war in China is indeed a factor, so no BYD, so Tesla is the nearest option.

It wasn't just the Orange man saying China bad. Biden started with the tariffs on EVs with them.

However, what if you don't need to move 40k people/hour? What if the figure is closer to 2k?
In which case, even if the subway is "only" 5 times the cost, it would still end up substantially more expensive per passenger than the Tesla tunnel.

Still, there's quite a few ways to increase capacity of the tunnels after the fact. Switch to fully automated cars will allow 1 more passenger per car, increasing capacity. Using automation to shorten the following distance and increasing speed.
Right now, using more or less standard Tesla vehicles is cheaper due to the benefits of automation, but as more Boring tunnels are completed, the more sense creating a custom vehicle for them makes sense. There's been some brainstorming and engineering done for some sort of van or bus type vehicle, which would increase capacity by around a factor of 5. I'm hesitant to make a more defined guess on something that hasn't even been prototyped yet.

I am disappointed that they haven't fully automated the cars yet.

I think that what might be missed here is that one has to ask whether or not there'd be enough passenger traffic to justify 200 passengers per car @4-5 cars, IE ~1000 people. Just like how we don't need 4 lane highways everywhere, most are actually 2 lane, but some are 6-8 lane. That said, I think that the people capacity would be lower because subways typically don't assume luggage. While airlines charging for luggage has dropped the amount people carry substantially, many still bring at least one bag to check. So maybe not 200 passengers, but closer to 100-150?

If you don't need to dig the enormous tunnel to enable either ICE engines or a large subway car, it reduces costs by a lot.

While I am substantially disappointed in Tesla NOT fully automating their tunnel vehicles, the fact remains that the Boring Company/Tesla Motors have an understanding and a path forward for increasing capacity if called for. The current systems work well enough for the current demand, after all.

Shortening following distance, increasing speed, increasing passengers per car by eliminating the driver, upgrading to a custom van or bus on top of a Tesla sled chassis. Etc...

And yes, a ring road and maybe a few closed "expressways"

Only if its something you don't want to be doing. You're not billing yourself for your hobbies.

No we're not going to die, but its nice to have things to do in such situations. When I was a kid we had a hurricane come through that knocked out our power for over a month.

Don't give reading assignments. Especially vague ones. Because guess what, I might just read them and come to different conclusions, which I have.

Renting is only a possible blocker, probably temporary. Chargers are already being installed at apartment complexes. Charging at work is always a possibility.
Cannot afford to add a personal charger: While every situation is different, many cars COME with chargers when you buy them, and install could be as low as a couple hundred and is often state and federally subsidized. Installing the chargers can make sense to take advantage of lower utility rates as well as faster charging. Worst case, even a convenience outlet can put on like 30 miles overnight, which is enough for many commuters, and even if not, can reduce visiting an outside charger to "occasionally".

Shared parking lot, HOA or such: That's why you do it when there's a bunch interested in it. Wiring is actually a lot more complex, you're unlikely to see 14AWG in a parking lot, period, for various reasons. No spare lines: There's always ways around this, such as installing a junction box. Accuse me of ignorance, now you're showing your own with electrical. There isn't ever "one 240V line". Electricity in the USA is done over two hots - 1 hot and 1 neutral = 120V, 2 hots = 240V. That's why a 240V breaker is twice the size of a 120V one. Now, being out of room in the breaker box is possible, even though having extra slots has been a requirement for a very long time, expansion is still a thing. There's various ways to fix this, such as installing a sub-panel.
For sharing the dryer and car, that's actually a thing because a lot of dryers are in the garage, so for a couple hundred you can actually get an auto-switching panel that will shut off car charging whenever you want to run the dryer, automatically.

Remember, they're buying a car in the tens of thousands. A few hundred for a charger isn't that out of line, especially if it will save them money in the long run. After Trump, I figure that subsidies will come back again, and that will trigger a surge.

And no, constant plugging and unplugging isn't a safety hazard if the outlet is properly rated. There's plenty of industrial outlets at that power that are designed for lots of switching, like with welding.

That's not ideal unless you want to self-host a web-enabled local one. Most people need access to their password manager while on multiple computers and devices.