4 ms·

You're thinking about it all wrong, like it's some kind of blame. Seeing a problem and fixing a problem are two completely different things. Seeing a problem i

You're thinking about it all wrong, like it's some kind of blame. Seeing a problem and fixing a problem are two completely different things. Seeing a problem is a mental exercise, fixing a problem is an economic exercise. In this case, fixing the problem involves "just" buying, leasing, or otherwise occupying the most expensive premium public real estate. There's nothing "just" about this idea. It's expensive AF, and the person who wants more safety than current infrastructure can offer also wants lower prices than infrastructure can offer. How do you propose to square this circle? Where does the money come from? Shouting "showstopper!" is not an answer, but fortunately the EV movement has a plan, one that will actually work. They plan to first address the needs of enthusiasts who are willing to put up with high prices and patchy infrastructure, and then use that money & mindshare to fill in the infrastructure to serve everyone else, both through destination charging (so you don't have to sit with the car) and through gargantuan factories that can drive the economics of scale to compete on lower price brackets. Blaming men for not building this all yesterday is a bit silly. It'll happen. It's been the goal since 2006. There was no way to make it happen yesterday, but it will happen tomorrow. Patience.

Spivak 4y ago
Clearly we're talking past one another. There's no blame. The fact that women would have designed this system significantly differently to account for our specific needs is not blaming men for not doing that. But then you have to be willing to say, "yeah, the product as it currently exists is expected to be unpopular with women and we're fine with that right now." Like it's not hard too imagine a world where the rollout was to partner with gas stations and 24 hour convenience stores/restaurants where there are lights, people, and cameras.
- slowmovintarget 4y ago
  Why would women have designed the process any differently if economics were the driving factor? This is a roll-out; women are just as proficient with difficult finance decisions as men even when those decisions don't make initial conditions ideal for women.
  - pwinnski 4y ago
    Why would "economics" be the sole, or driving, factor, without anybody in the room to say "Hey, roughly 50% of the potential market is not going to use any charging location they deem unsafe, and in fact if we don't work hard to provide a lot of safe charging locations, the entire market size is going to be constrained?" The women described are making rational choices here. Safety is paramount. The market isn't currently for them, and the people who have created the status quo have done so foolishly, because there weren't enough women in the room when these decisions were made.
    - solidsnack9000 4y ago
      * If 50% will use it, then it still might be a good buy at a low enough price. * The desirable, safe, &c locations for fueling cars are for the most part already occupied by gas stations, so it might be that there are only a few locations available that 100% will use. It is rational to obtain those few and then add locations that 50% will use to reduce load on the locations that 100% will use. The idea that women in the room would have changed this is not plausible, because the constraints are not any different for women planners in this situation than for men planners.

Spivak 4y ago

Clearly we're talking past one another. There's no blame. The fact that women would have designed this system significantly differently to account for our specific needs is not blaming men for not doing that. But then you have to be willing to say, "yeah, the product as it currently exists is expected to be unpopular with women and we're fine with that right now." Like it's not hard too imagine a world where the rollout was to partner with gas stations and 24 hour convenience stores/restaurants where there are lights, people, and cameras.

slowmovintarget 4y ago
Why would women have designed the process any differently if economics were the driving factor? This is a roll-out; women are just as proficient with difficult finance decisions as men even when those decisions don't make initial conditions ideal for women.
- pwinnski 4y ago
  Why would "economics" be the sole, or driving, factor, without anybody in the room to say "Hey, roughly 50% of the potential market is not going to use any charging location they deem unsafe, and in fact if we don't work hard to provide a lot of safe charging locations, the entire market size is going to be constrained?" The women described are making rational choices here. Safety is paramount. The market isn't currently for them, and the people who have created the status quo have done so foolishly, because there weren't enough women in the room when these decisions were made.
  - solidsnack9000 4y ago
    * If 50% will use it, then it still might be a good buy at a low enough price. * The desirable, safe, &c locations for fueling cars are for the most part already occupied by gas stations, so it might be that there are only a few locations available that 100% will use. It is rational to obtain those few and then add locations that 50% will use to reduce load on the locations that 100% will use. The idea that women in the room would have changed this is not plausible, because the constraints are not any different for women planners in this situation than for men planners.