40% of the MG video is the guy reading out a news article, the article was not linked anywhere in video description or pinned comments. You really expect people to endure that kind of journalism? If you really care about having a constructive discussion, dig deeper to find the news article he referenced and post it up.
I won't stop posting my views based on skim reading youtube transcript of any poorly structured videos, if I wish. I don't see anything wrong with minimum effort on my part when you've spent minimum effort in sharing it.
The last 2 videos I posted explaining what is Agrivoltaics, provoked by your "problem with solar farm". Both 10-15min long with infographics and well structured video.
Even earlier, page 76, I posted a 10min video explaining portable EV rapid charging, as possible solution to a news article regarding EV charging at motorway services. The video is optional because my words around it explained the concept. But the video is still well edited and packed with information.
Same page, I posted the 33min video regarding trailers, in response to someone mention wanting to tow. But I made the video start at important bit (last few minutes) and included screenshot for critical information: how much longer it will take vs not towing.
That's all the video I've shared after the 20mph talk.
The problem isn't I don't take my own advice, the problem is you introducing a new subject out of the blue with a single video and nothing around it. The video is usually of someone ranting to a camera with very poor structure and difficult to digest. Example 1, Example 2, Example 3. At very least do a summary like with example 2.
I am only interested in the truth and facts. Isolated incidents are neither here or there, and if you don't like your assumptions being pointed out, then stop making things up based on wildly wrong assumptions. (wrong assumptions: "problem with solar", "all customers getting green tariff", "energy supplier are same people sitting on windfall profit", "tablet computer freeze is relevant to car control software" in just last 3 pages)
You say you don't have an agenda against EV's. Then why do you keep posting stuff from the anti-EV side of argument? Please correct me if I'm wrong with reference, but I don't remember seeing a single positive thing you've shared regarding EV's. Every post from you had been problem with EV's.
You say I have been defending EV's. But in actual fact, I am posting both positive and negative information. The rapid charging news article I shared is bad for EV adoption. The increased towing time I shared is also honest information and relatively bad vs ICE towing. I'm about getting to the bottom of the truth and I am always happy stand corrected, as I had been recently.