Can relate to much of what that article states.  Technology can indeed help people without necessarily replacing them; which Musk and Tesla seem motivated to accomplish.  The problem becomes that not all drivers want the same level of technology, or same level of simplicity at opposite extreme for that matter, which means that many people will be unhappy with vehicle choices.  If a buyer wants an ultra simple electric car, you’re out of luck unless you live in China as far as I know.  Maybe India too, who knows.   I like driving and find it relaxing, and prefer being 100% in control.  I also enjoy bike riding for same reason, where the machine is simple and can almost feel like an extension of your body.  There’s no computer taking over steering, or braking, etc.; and great handling is a must.   The feature I like best about electric vehicles is that they can be easily downsized, much more practical and cost-effectively than ICE.  Every day I notice more kids and adults riding electric scooters, bicycles, 4 wheelers, etc. around my neighborhood.  Who knows, maybe some of this mindset will rub off on future automotive transportation.   A four wheel motorcycle with body enclosure to protect rider from weather could be a blast.  I wouldn’t take a small city car on highway due to safety concerns on regular basis, but would buy one just for the added fun of driving if designed and built simple enough.  However, to pass as a “toy”, price would have to be much lower than say, the Smart EV.  VW and Audi played with this idea over a decade ago but apparently demand wasn’t enough to pursue beyond concept.

I’m reading American Icon - the Ford Mulally book - and in the early 2000s Ford Europe was saving the company.

An issue mentioned in video was possible urgency to open any door from outside if a pet or child is stuck inside when battery dies, or any other electrical issue that causes failure.  One can argue it shouldn’t happen at all, but if it did, then what?  In extreme case breaking window could/should work.  I can also imagine getting locked out in horrible weather or unsafe area and wanting to wait for help while inside car.  The procedure to attach jumper cables and charge battery, assuming it works at all, doesn’t sound all that quick in the first place.

Correct. For a while Ford Europe was generating all the profit and cash that propped up the rest of the company. But back then, the pension reporting rules were the same for US companies as the rest of the world. I don't want to turn this into an accounting discussion but the entire world reports pension expense when the pension is paid. For US companies, they have to accrued pension expense when it is earned, and they have to set aside cash reserves to pay for the pension. This has been the case since the US accounting rules were changed in 1987. This means US companies (especially ones that employs a lot of highly skilled people for a long time like Boeing, Ford, GM, GE etc) are saddled with a lot of extra expenses and is required to restrict a lot of cash that their foreign competitors don't need to worry about.    Even when foreign companies have the same exact location and pension obligation, the operating results are quite different. We saw a clear example of this when 1 year after GM sold Opel to PSA, it made a huge profit. A lot of people use that as an example on how GM "mismanaged" Opel. It was none of that. The only difference is PSA didn't need to accrue pension expenses and is not required to set aside cash to pay for those pension.    Another example... for a few year FCA and subsequently Stellantis reported huge earnings from US operations. People reflectively point to Jeep and Dodge as cash cows. But really, the reason they were profitable is because the former Chrysler part of the company no longer reported results on US GAAP -  the pension expenses disappeared overnight making Jeep appear very profitable. But the reality is all the products were aging and they needed replacements so the profits were really a short term benefits of accounting rule change going from US GAAP to IFRS.

This is one of those "a long time ago" stories, but back in the 80's when Ford NA was hemorrhaging money, it was Ford Europe that bailed them out.

2022 Bronco Sport.  No harsh shifting issues with mine.  When you turn the knob it engages smoothly.  

YouTube   This is the video on how to use the "E-Latch" and what to do if you lose power.  Maybe I'm missing something, but it's pretty straight forward.

It's not mismanaged per se. It's just very difficult to turn an accounting profit as an US company operating in Europe because of the accounting rules on pension costs is different for US companies vs. the rest of the world. Pension (both Govt mandated or private) and other defined benefits plans are still very common in Europe where there is no 401K like savings plan.   I'm a bit skeptical that Ford will commit to building CE1 in Europe. There is spare capacity to build it in North America - Mexico and Canada has free trade agreement with EU which is why Ford was going to build GE2 there instead of US. And Ford hasn't said a peep about what it is doing in India... they are restarting production there but only for export - the obvious destination is EU.

I thought a manual backup was required inside on all cars?

It was a strange decision to not use Tremor from the start since Explorer had always used truck trim levels since inception.   e.g. XL, XLS, Sport, XLT, Eddie Bauer, King Ranch, Platinum etc. all were/are Ford truck trim levels