Your comment reminds of me of this. If in the future medicines/technologies are invented to get rid of people's impulses to hurt one another (as in Stanislaw Lem's Return from the Stars), but in doing so, people also lost the impulse to take risks, would you be for or against such technology? Neither side is wrong.

Anyhow, I think it's a well-known fact that Tesla's rise is due to their innovation in both hardware and software (Technology). Their Supercharger network (Infrastructure) surely is also ahead of their competitors by a wide margin.

Taking risks on impulse is just gambling. Taking risks after considering all of the known factors and estimating the unknown is logic.

Take a long distance road trip with an EV without Supercharger access. Report back.

I mean, just 3-4 years back I'd agree with you. Nowadays at least here in UK you're getting 100-150kW chargers being built literally everywhere. I'd have no problem owning and driving cross-country in a non-Tesla EV nowadays. That equation will only be getting worse and worse for Tesla - they are adding more Superchargers but nowhere near the rate of non-Superchargers. Yes, Superchargers are better technically(especially if you have the latest Model 3 and can tap into the 250kW charge), but it's no longer the argument to buy a Tesla - charging a normal EV is less and less of a problem, even on long journeys, even without having access to the Supercharger network.

Superchargers are better on average.

But the US Electric Canonball run record is NOT held by a Tesla. It's getting there.

Their charging infrastructure is by far the best out there, even if it is a proprietary standard.

> proprietary standard

???

Teslas don't use NEMA chargers in the US.