Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | rebolek's commentslogin

Maybe we should also call it labor camp.

I often joke with my family about going back to the salt mine when I leave for work.

Death spiral to gas stations? why? EV cars need to charge somewhere (and on long trip it can’t be at home) and people need to take a break and grab a coffee sometime too. They will change, sure, but certainly not die. Refineries will be fewer but we do need another products from them also.

Presumably a lot of people will charge at home which significantly cuts down the number of stations needed or the traffic to those stations.

For example, I have 2 gas stations within a mile of my home. They stay pretty busy because people around me constantly need to fill up. I, on the other hand, basically never visit either of those stations since I switched to an EV. I charge at home.

If everyone around me switched to EVs, those stations could not stay in business. There's a grocery store in the same area which makes anything those stations offer obsolete.

Those are the majority of gas stations that die with a mass switch over to EVs. There's a gas station for my hometown without an attached convenience store with 300 people there. There's no way that station stays in service if a significant portion of the community switches to EVs. It already struggles to be profitable as is (I know the owner).


That might be the case in places where most people live in single-family homes with dedicated garage.

Where I live (Spain) that's not the case at all - our towns are very dense. People in big cities tend to live mostly in flats (Europe's highest elevators-per-capita). Even people in the countryside, where it's more common to have a 1-family homes, often don't have a dedicated garage.


Chargers can be anywhere. They are at grocery stores, parking lots, restaurants, I can see the need for a dedicated re fuel station to disappear when charging is ubiquitous.

This is what people don’t get. Charging just means parking. The idea of dedicated charging stations where you stand around doing nothing, maybe buying a candy bar, really only make sense in the context of a fuel which is not literally already everywhere.

I've seen this on the Autobahns: what were just parking spots with unattended bathrooms are becoming little charging stations. Since I don't have an EV yet, I've not stopped at one to see how high-speed the chargers are, but at the very least, I assume that 10-15 minutes would be enough to get you somewhere more efficient/pleasant to wait for a full charge.

A place where you can take a break and grab a coffee is called a cafe, not a gas station.

Also, with Chinese manufacturers increasingly pushing out batteries capable of 1000+ km, you'll be able to charge fully at home for increasingly long road trips.


I'm using the definitions:

- Gas Station = retail outlet that sells and dispenses gasoline and other petroleum-based fuel products

- Charging station = place to charge your EV

Could be an interesting long bet. Will the number of retail locations selling gasoline in the UK in the year 2045 be higher or lower than in 2026?


In 2045 petrol stations will be well on the way the being about as rare as places selling paraffin or special racing car fuel today.

I don't see how this is an interesting bet. No new petrol car will have been sold for 10 years. Places selling fuel for large lorries etc will last a bit longer, but these are already a fraction of the total.


Charging stations will only need to be on highways if cities are sensible and build slow charging infrastructure (aka normal wall sockets) in parking spaces. Urban gas stations will be a thing of the past.

"Prompt diff" is just wish. Why not call it what it is? It’s perfectly fine to submit wishes, feature requests, RFCs or - if you want - "prompt diffs". But there’s no need for LLM to implement it, human can do it. Or not, LLM can. That’s not the point who implements it, it’s a wish.

This is very shortsighted and it’s like polishing gun to shoot your foot with it.

If it’s "take it home OSS" and "there is not much need to submit PRs or issues" then why would anybody submit PRs and issues for "for critical bugs or security fixes"? If they have fix and it works for them, they’re fine, afterall.

And while we’re at it, why would anybody share anything? It’s just too much hassle. People will either complain or don’t bother at all.

I think that after few years, when LLM coding would be an old boring thing everybody’s used to and people will learn few hard lessons because of not sharing, we’ll come to some new form of software collaboration because it’s more effective than thinking me and LLM are better than me and LLM and thousands or millions people and LLMs.


> why would anybody share anything

Before LLMs, it was cheaper in the long run; by upstreaming your patches you don't have to rebase them continually and sometimes the community will maintain the code for you. OTOH sometimes you might need to work on the code again though as other parts of the project evolve if the project is likely to throw out unmaintained code; this is especially true in the Linux kernel where internal APIs change constantly, but upstream maintenance is probably cheaper than continually backporting security fixes to your stable/LTS/SLTS or completely dead versions.

With LLMs the costs might be different but will still exist.


> then why would anybody submit PRs and issues for "for critical bugs or security fixes"?

Why do they do that at present? There are plenty of cases where it's a hassle but people still do it, presumably out of a sense of common decency.


> common decency

Another self-serving reason is so that you can upgrade in the future without having to worry about continually pulling your own private patch set forward.


I think people do that because they are closely involved with the code/plumbing. If they spend a week fixing a bug, they feel the weight of the changes that they made with every line that they wrote. If they just fixed the issue in passing and moved on to the next thing, I don't know if they would feel the same weight to contribute back.

More often than not, LLMs fixes an issue as a downstream user. So there's even less pressure to fix the issue. Because if library A does not work on Windows, it would just use mash together library B and C and something from itself to fix the work around it.


So could they finally fix their quotations marks in Czech? Probably no, they never cared, so why should they start caring now.

No but they might be able to fix authentication problems, which is what this is.

Guess what, they’ll do nothing. If Czech market is small enough for them to fix quotation marks, they’re not fixing Czech keyboard.

OTOH, if an American will whine enough on Internet, they may fix it for him. Maybe some other American should use standard Czech quotes as password to get it fixed also.


I still prefer American insanity to Russia or China flavours.

It's getting comparable to Russia since the Citrus Caligula took over.

China behaves quite responsibly outside of their borders (which are a bit fluid with regards to Taiwan and the seas, but still).


I would prefer that we stop putting the criminally insane in charge of WMDs, armies, and entire nations.

I don’t vote for them but when they’re in charge, I protest. I can do this because I’m not in China or ruSSia.

Remember this claim in ten years

Of course they look like fools, war has changed very quickly in last few years since their friend Putin fully attacked Ukraine but they’re arrogant enough to not notice. Super-sophisticated ultra-expensive weapons are really nice to have but not that useful against swarms of cheap drones.

Even if war hadn't changed, the US would still fail.

I asked someone after the 9/11 attacks about the possibility of the USA invading Iran and even back then I got a "lol no that's nuts the USA would have its arse handed to it" kind of answer. Better phrased, but basically that.


> America, Colby and his colleagues told the cardinal, has the military power to do whatever it wants in the world.

Yeah, well. That aged like raw milk.


Republicans have talked like this for a long time, see

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community


Which is of course nonsense because LLM is from definition unable to bring in something new. It's not standing on shoulders of giants, it's just making endless copies of them.


That is trivially untrue, even if we ignore the misnomer of trying to use a language model for non-linguistic audio file outputs. I can assure you there was no reference material of say Sam Altman getting arrested when he is getting caught stealing GPUs from a shelf of a BestBuy. (One of the uses of SORA.)


Why do you want to destroy Wikipedia?


I don't. that's why I am working with Wikipedia editors to help improve it. For example policies on aligning agents with wikipedia standards. This a topic that requires thought, not knee-jerk reactions.


Their current policy of no AI bots is fine. No need to improve it, you can't.


The current policy is not "no AI Bots": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bot_policy. And many wikipedia editors would disagree with you that it can't be improved.


> The use of LLMs to generate or rewrite article content is prohibited

I'm not a wikipedia editor, but I assume this applies to bots as well

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Artificial_intellige...


> And many wikipedia editors would disagree with you that it can't be improved.

There are many people who think many things that are wrong. That doesn't make them right.


You clearly have no understanding of the principle of consent.

If you don't want to destroy Wikipedia, why are you acting like this?


I'm suspect that many of his responses here are written by AI.


How would using a bullshit generator trained on Wikipedia improve it in any way?


Consider applying for YC's Summer 2026 batch! Applications are open till May 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: