[throwaway894345]

No one disputes that most days most people drive less than their winter range, but I don’t see what that has to do with anything. Most people survive cancer most of the time; I still wouldn’t characterize modern cancer treatment as “fine”. We aren’t settling for the 50th percentile.

[wat10000]

For consumer products, handling the 50th percentile is excellent. There's nothing wrong with a car that is "only" suitable for half the population.

Needing to buy a different kind of car and dying from cancer are ever so slightly different experiences. But thank you for the kind of absurd HN take that inspired my username.

[NetMageSCW]

But most of the EVangalists who post seem to have a very unrealistic viewpoint that says 33% of the (US) population is an edge case and that no one needs more than 200 miles of range because there are chargers every ten miles and no one goes on long trips anyway, especially unplanned (since they only have 80% of their range even when plugging in every night).

[throwaway894345]

> Needing to buy a different kind of car and dying from cancer are ever so slightly different experiences. But thank you for the kind of absurd HN take that inspired my username.

It’s not absurdity, it’s analogy. If you can’t distinguish between the two then HN may indeed not be for you.

[wat10000]

It's an absurd analogy. It doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. You wouldn't call a cancer treatment that fails to cure a minority of people "fine", so EVs aren't "fine"?

[throwaway894345]

lol that was the entire point of the analogy. congratulations, you seem to have accidentally stumbled onto the point, but at least you got there. :)

[wat10000]

The point of the analogy was that these things are in no way comparable, and EVs only serving a large chunk of the population is in fact fine?