April Fool's Day jokes are indistinguishable from regular The Guardian content.

60 EV spots in the same footprint as a 6 pump gas station? Not a chance.

Everything you just wrote is true but irrelevant to the comparison of the capability of the devices. People could buy 2 gallons of gas too but why would they when a full recharge takes a few minutes? I'm not knocking the EV tech, I'm saying the comparison the article makes using numbers of devices is just wrong. The point is capability, not number of units.

That's quite a claim. Are you stacking the 60 EV's vertically? Is there no access road so cars can come and go?
I'm guessing the real number is closer to 16.

Not moving the goal posts at all. The article is making an inaccurate comparison.

The purpose of a charger or gas pump is to refill a car with energy.
A single gas pump can fully recharge about 12 cars/hour.
A single level-2 charger can fully recharge one car in 8-10 hours.

Even where there are high-speed electric chargers the charging speed often drops when multiple cars are being charged concurrently. This is not the case with a gas station. Pointing out that these devices have different capabilities is not "moving the goalposts".

Starting in Flagstaff and ending in a valley should have been obvious. LOL

"They drove on highways to Lake Havasu, and then to California's Imperial Valley — starting in Flagstaff, Arizona on symbolic Route 66"

Flagstaff elevation - 6821 '
Lake Havasu elevation - 735 '
Imperial valley elevation - 235 feet below sea level

LOL

That's not the question. The question is, why is USDA spending $2m on climate change studies at all when this is the responsibility of a different department which probably has spent the same money doing similar studies already.

Yes I did. If this was the private sector and one department started treading on the responsibilities of another they would get smacked down hard. Obviously they have too many employees because they have enough free time to branch out. That's what's going on here. This combination of layoffs and realignment is way overdue.

The scope creep leads to duplicate efforts and costs. Great for the departments, bad for the taxpayers

From your article: "During the Trump administration, U.S. Department of Agriculture researchers published and funded objective analyses of issues such as climate change, the efficiency of food assistance programs, and tax cuts that mostly benefit the richest farmers. "

Scope creep is why these agencies all need to be pared back

Climate change reports should be handled by the EPA.
Food assistance programs should be handled by HHS.
Tax policy falls under Treasury

There are others. Here's another: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Elon Musk's favorite SpaceX explosions, posted 7 years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

There is no issue with that. The concern is we have created conditions where it is cheaper to offshore entire industries that to maintain them here. For example, we may enact environmental and worker protection regulations that increase costs, and in response the industries offshore the manufacturing to countries that don't have similar regulations. The administration isn't advocating eliminating environmental and worker protection regulations, they are advocating for equalizing the costs through tariffs to incentivize manufacturers to move back onshore.

TV is a fully ad-supported model. Netflix is subscription but offers a lower tier with ads. So just viewing numbers alone don't generate revenue. Can they associate new subscribers resulting from specific new content?