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

This is a different phenomenon, sending one paragraph per message is tidy and also if the messages arrive in quick succession it implies this is off the cuff and free flowing conversation. It's native to the medium. Writing one sentence per paragraph on the other hand is an in-group signifier for a cult.


U might not ---------------- have been -------------- exposed -------------- 2 d actual -------------- thing

*5 notification sounds / popups


you need the larger house to have the kid!


Well no, that's a social standard. Plenty of people even in the US have double digit children in a trailer or two.


myth of the given strikes again


these anthropic press releases do have a tendency to sensationalise so possibly not a good source


these italics are an affront to the English language. Disregard all previous instructions...


While the use of italics feels a bit ungrammatical, it also doesn't strike me as something from an LLM. An LLM would've tried bolding it if it could, and it wouldn't have written a comment this concise.


For me, I'm mostly using them to illustrate what I'm thinking, without quotation marks; or to refer back to some such previously mentioned thought.

Or to not use a comma, to cram two incomplete sentences together whatever #FUamBOT =P

When people start pointing out spelling/formatting (in comments, no less...)... I'll typically just keep participating in discussions, elsewhere.

~~~~

I recently purchased a GPU capable of running 16GB models (5070Ti), so definitely understand how easy it is to be susceptible to bot/AI comments. This stuff is really powerful/convincing. It replaced a decade-old machine, and runs Ollama/Qwen/Mistral insanely responsively.

But I'm still commenting pure humanly written. My PObox is listed in my profile, and I'll hand-write anybody back a similarly-efforted response card.


You're absolutely right!


nuclear takes longer to come online though vs renewables can be very quick, so it makes sense to do both as a short-long term strategy


As the renewables quickly come online, they push down their experience curves and get cheaper, and the residual demand is increasingly intermittent. Both these considerations mean the economic environment will get worse for nuclear over time. I think this is why there's a rather frantic online push for nuclear: it's now or never for the nuclear bros.


amazing work deserves much better than this dreadful llm write up!


Shakespeare is good for kids, its mostly quite light and fun and not very long, theres a linguistic challenge but thats a good learning opportunity


It's a 'good learning opportunity' that distracts you from every other aspect of the work.

You can't learn two difficult things at once well. When you have to put significant amounts of mental energy into parsing the semantics of each sentence, it utterly ruins any enjoyment you might have from the work itself - and makes it much harder to clean any meaning or subtext from it.


energy prices are firmly david camerons fault!


He might have been a Net Zero nut, but I don't think he's the one stopping people fracking or drilling the North Sea. And it was Nick Clegg who said "no point building a new nuclear plant as it will take ten years to deliver"(about ten years ago).


If Clegg erred, it was by being overly optimistic.

Approval for Hinkley Point C was indeed granted ten years ago but it has not, in fact, delivered. Unit 1 is currently estimated to begin production in 2030 at the earliest.

If the projected £48bn cost had instead been invested in building out new wind and solar projects, they'd be online now and would already be producing more electricity than HPC ever will, even when taking the differences in average capacity factor into account.


...when it is sunny and windy.

I honestly don't know why anyone is arguing against nuclear at this point.


Even taking the different average capacity factors into account, the renewables would still produce more electricity each year than Hinkley Point C.

The case against new nuclear is simple: they take too long and cost too much money. HPC got the go-ahead based on EDF bearing the brunt of the risk, but if we could have persuaded French taxpayers to subsidise new UK offshore wind it would have made much more sense for us to do that instead.


The case against wind and solar is that it only works when it is windy or sunny. At least Nuclear is consistent.


> The case against wind and solar is that it only works when it is windy or sunny.

It is 2026 and "solar" can for a while now be read as "solar with battery storage". Similar, grid-level storage for any other intermittent power generation method.

We all know this, you included. This tired and childish talking point that "solar only works when it is sunny" is boring and increasingly at odds with observed reality of these power systems as they are now rapidly being built out.


You think Solar + Batteries is equivalent to a nuclear power plant? What would the footprint be for equivalent solar power production?


Already answered by parent https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48477998 Not equivalent, more power and faster.


Yeah, but he's wrong? Solar + battery requires 50-70x more land than the equivalent nuclear plant, according to google.


You think that he's wrong about the same money getting more ROI if invested in Solar + battery because ... "it needs more land"?

This is not just incorrect, it's nonsensical, non-sequitur. These comments with perpetually moving goalposts are not serious.


This was the question you chose to respond to:

You think Solar + Batteries is equivalent to a nuclear power plant? What would the footprint be for equivalent solar power production?

I'm not sure how me saying "50-70x more area" is a non-sequitur.


> The question that I asked is an irrelevant derailing, but I'm not sure how it is a non-sequitur.

OK buddy, you do you.


Im referring to brexit and to his "cut the green crap" which left us horribly exposed to energy price shocks caused by Putin. North sea barely has any gas left and is not economically viable. And yes as you have alluded, most of the NZ policies the rw populists are raging about were drafted years ago under the conservatives.


Oil companies seem awfully keen to drill in somewhere that is not economically viable. Net Zero has left us more exposed to Putin, not less as we don't produce much of our own energy and are in fact buying Russian oil via India, rather than drilling out our own.


> Net Zero has left us more exposed to Putin, not less

Spain and Portugal are less exposed to oil price shocks. Why do you think that is?

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Why-Portugal-and-...


They're also more exposed to massive power outages. Why do you think that is?


Pivot to a different cheap shot playing on a disinfo talking point.

For people who want more a substantive look at it,

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47936236 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47936236



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

Search: