Boot

Plugshare has this cool feature where it tells you if a charger is a rapid charger or a destination charger. The orange ones in the image are rapid chargers. As you can see, they are not just on highways.

Plugshare also has a rating system to give you an indication of reliability, user reports so you can see if it was working recently, and even has integration with several charging companies to give you realtime information about how many chargers are available or in use.

The old tritium chargers had reliability issues, but the newer chargers seem to be a lot better so far.

Yes, really. I recommend checking plugshare (linked above) to find chargers before complaining about the lack of chargers.

I did rideshare driving for several years using just a standard 10A outlet. I can promise you it’s fine for over 99% of people.

The only reason I upgraded to a 3x faster charger was because it had a cable mounted to the wall which was more convenient.

If you only charge overnight, a 10 hour charge will add 24kWh which is about 150km. If you absolutely must drive over 150km per day (7 days per week) and you can’t charge at home for more than 10 hours per day (even on weekends), you can stop at a rapid charger once per week. It’s still cheaper and more convenient than petrol.

TL;DR: You can’t charge in remote areas in central Australia.

If you live in a city you can charge almost anywhere. All major highways are covered. Check PlugShare for charger locations.

If you can charge at home, you’ll get cheaper and more convenient electricity.

Car travel is massively subsidised. The road maintenance, emergency services, new road construction, traffic light electricity, smart highway monitoring, snow ploughing and more are subsidised for roads.

Many railways are privately owned, so all costs are paid by the owner or anyone who uses it. If railways had similar subsidies to roads they would be far cheaper.

https://lemmy.world/post/43113083

I personally think there is a (sometimes subtle) difference between paid software and harmful software.

Meta and X are definitely causing harm, but is something like Synergy? Sure, it costs money, but that money seems to be going to the developers. That would be no worse than paying a street vendor for food.

Likewise, finding an open-source virus and using it to hack people doesn’t absolve you of guilt.

While many large corporations tend toward capitalism, corruption and even fascism, I believe there is a lot more nuance than just paid vs free or closed vs open source.

In Australia, Woolworths got reprimanded for selling fuel at a loss. They had a deal where you could buy groceries to earn points which could get you cheaper fuel at their fuel stations. Other companies couldn’t compete, and Woolworths was only able to sustain it because the extra profit they made from selling groceries covered the loss on the fuel.

Many companies have done similar. Uber operated at a loss for years to force taxi companies into bankruptcy, then put their prices up to higher than the taxis had been after the competition was gone.
Comcast had very cheap internet prices in any area where Google was offering Google Fibre, but exceedingly high prices (and worse service) in areas with no competition. Google couldn’t compete on price because Comcast could afford to operate at a loss in a few areas, and Google couldn’t afford to start offering internet across the entire country during it’s startup phase.

It could be done, but big businesses don’t play fairly. They have lots of money to spend on driving you our of business, and lots of future profits as incentive to do so.