Providers of even faster charging will appear as soon as there are potential consumers for them.

I know where the next 400 kW charger is here around. It's literally a short walk away or about 300 feet. I don't see your problem. (The next gas station is about half a mile away, so right now, electric charging wins.)

It's even more complicated than that. There are various types of polls: Polls of people allowed to vote, polls of registered voters, polls of likely voters... Look at the actual poll, they will tell you what type of people they interviewed.

Given current battery technology, about 100% of original range. Current batteries are rated at no range loss for the first 1 mio kilometer or 600,000 miles.

Problem is solved with the 6C charging offered on newer Chinese BEVs. First examples were presented a year ago. You can recharge within 8 mins from 10% to 80% state of charge, equivalent to another 400 km of range, given a 550 km total range. (I have the same problem, no home charging and being forced to use public chargers somewhere.)

No, you won't get the same range as a 1990 Audi 100 TDI, which got more than 1500 km on a single refuel. But within a drive of 400 km, you should get a break of 10 mins anyway.

In about 10 years, you'll get a used BEV for that price.

Instead of answering the question, you posed it a second time.

Since two articles by Fritz Zwicky in 1936 and 1938, physicists know that there are not enough visible stars in galaxies to explain galaxy clusters staying together given the speed of galaxies moving relatively to each other. That's why Fritz Zwicky called the missing mass "dark matter", because it apparently was not bright enough to be visible to us and could only be detected by its gravitational effects on galaxies staying together.

Vera Rubin in the 1960ies measured the speed of stars in the outer regions of the Andromeda galaxy and found out that they all seem to have the same speed on their orbit of about 200 kilometer per second, independent of their distance to Andromeda's center, while Kepler's Third Law was postulating a slowing down of speed proportional to the square root of distance. Later measurements showed the same effect on all galaxies measured.

When the Cosmic Microwave Background was detected also in the 1960ies, its small fluctuations allowed for the calculation of the amount of nucleons generated during the Big Bang, which gives an upper limit on the total mass of stars, neutron stars, white dwarfs, planets, dust and clouds in the whole universe. Since a few years, astronomers have perfected ways of detecting this type of matter in the Universe, and they can account for all the nucleonic (or baryonic) mass generated in the Big Bang.

Since the start of the Hubble Space Telescope, we can see gravitational lensing effects throughout the Universe, and now we have a tool to measure the distribution of mass in the universe by the gravitational effects of galaxies and galaxy clusters.

And now we have two sets of measurement: We can measure visible matter a.k.a. baryonic matter at all temperature scales, and we know how much of it is out there. And we know how much gravitational effect is out there by measuring galaxy rotation curves, movements within galaxy clusters and gravitational lenses. And in all cases, the result is that there is only about 17% of visible matter compared to gravitationally detectable matter, which means that 83% of all matter is unaccounted for. So either we don't understand electromagnetism (and we can measure electromagnetic effects with 12 positions, and calculate it with the same precision), or we don't understand Gravity (and we are able to maneuver space crafts around massive bodies and get them exactly where we want them to be, and we can compensate for the relativistic effects of the gravitational field of Earth to measure positions on Earth to a few meter), or there is something out there which is massive, but not detectable by electromagnetic waves.

It's your choice. But it's not wild bullshit.

The UK might not have any brands anymore, but it has large plants to build cars. In 2024, the UK plants produced 1 million cars and trucks.

I don't know in what world your idea would work. Why should U.S. companies sell any drugs to other countries if they didn't make a profit? Why should I subside sales in one country with the profits from another country other than trying to increase market share to later raise the prices? If a local branch does not manage to gain the margin I expect, I just close shop there.

Ironically, in every country I have heard the same complaint. There is a rumor that a drug is more expensive in your own country than in another one. That's always a clear proof that you pay the development of the drugs sold so cheap in the other country. I've heard the same in Germany, in France, in Spain... As it seems, each country pays the development of a drug for all the other countries in the world.

No. The reality is that each company charges the maximum for a product it can get away with. If the conditions in the U.S. allow to charge on average three times the prices than in other countries, then why would a company not do so? Why should it voluntarily forfeit two thirds of revenue? It has nothing to do with Research & Development, but all with trying to maximize profits.

You mean, like the United Kingdom, which got a deal for their car industry so sweet that the U.S. car industry has already complained? Donald Trump will probably sign anything which has the word "Deal" somewhere just to prove he got them. No one will ask him if the deal actually makes sense.

And still, more people buy at IKEA, where you can mount everything with a Philips screwdriver and that funny Allen key you get in the bag with the hardware.

Yes and no. The news is that the real results measured right now are at the upper level of the estimates, which means that reality is worse than the science popularizations have suggested so far - and they were already called alarmist, when in fact, they were understating the problem.

This is not playing devil's advocate, this is whataboutism. Even more so, it proves the point of the security professionals. If we can't even make something designed not to have backdoors safe enough to prevent unauthorized access, how much more insecure is something which should be designed to have an obvious and an obscure access? Now we have to fight off even more attack vectors, and apparently, we aren't perfect in it.

Alcatraz was phased out because it was too expensive to operate. What would DOGE say?

And you have to keep test systems around based on the different chipsets. The list can be expanded: timing is different on different processor architectures. Memory management is different. Interrupt control is different. The number and the layout of differently privileged modes is different. That means that syscalls have to be implemented differently. And this does not in the slightest exhausts the list of 486 quirks and features (and that of every other chip architecture).