4 ms·
We are giving the same solutions. The difference is, I'm saying that it is a problem _today_ that these solutions do not exist, and the lack of those solutions
by jen20 2y ago
We are giving the same solutions.
The difference is, I'm saying that it is a problem _today_ that these solutions do not exist, and the lack of those solutions means that EVs are not a viable solution for a lot of people _today_. If these problems are solved, EVs will become more viable for more people, and all EV owners will benefit from the improved infrastructure. However, the infrastructure chicken must come before the EV egg.
Today, it is not a true statement that "EVs are the best choice for everyone", which is what I was responding to. Every one of your comments tries to dispute that, while also pointing to the same problems as I am and making them out to be imaginary - the very _definition_ of gaslighting!
- WorldMaker 2y ago> while also pointing to the same problems as I am and making them out to be imaginary - the very _definition_ of gaslighting! A) That's very not the definition of gaslighting. Gaslighting is lying and faking events with the intent to abuse someone's state of mind (make them feel crazy, make them feel dependent/codependent, remove them from support networks). Like I said, it is a very charged term, and you should be a lot more careful with it. B) I've never called these problems imaginary. I think our big difference is not that I don't agree those are problems, but that I think these problems get fixed by everyone buying an EV. I feel that this is an ugly dinosaur egg needs to come first before the chicken situation. The Supercharger network is an okay enough bootstrap tool today that people can switch to EV today (even if they don't think that they can). It won't be the greatest experience, and there will be many useful things to complain about, but it will start to give added perspective they may need to better ask for the right things to make the experience better.