Blog-length summary here, includes links to published paper and non-paywalled preprint. sites.uw.edu/stlab/2025/0...

Tons of reputable researchers would be happy to do studies like this, if anyone was willing to pay for them. Who's job is it to fund work like this?

Of course you do. I would have called them a backwards shithole, vowed never to return, and told my friends. Our current administration is doing permanent damage to America's role, cultivated over decades, as the world's center of scientific progress.

You know what I would have done if any of these countries had denied me entry (or even hassled me upon entering) while coming for scientific exchange?

I have traveled to a number of foreign countries for this same purpose, and have never been denied entry. These countries include Switzerland, Finland, Greece, Japan, Korea, Singapore, Brazil, China, and Saudi Arabia.

I'm in the same boat. It creates perverse incentives in that researchers are expected to make theoretical and methodological "advances", even if they best way to study a phenomenon is with established theories and methods. So people contort their work to meet this expectation, at the cost of clarity

Per DOE, the US has:
- 11,720 DCFC stations
- 2,748 (23%) offering J3400 (NACS) charging
- 2,491 (21%) on the Supercharger network

So 18% doesn't seem unreasonable. The Supercharger strategy has been to build fewer, larger, more thoughtfully located stations.

The WSJ reported Tesla bidding at half the price of others for DCFC stations. But the bid price isn't necessarily the same as the cost. Tesla has $30B of cash on hand, whereas EVgo has $150M. Tesla could be bidding low to grow its network while boxing out competition. www.wsj.com/business/aut...