I really think this is a "drink the koolaid" phenomenon.

Personally, I don't want an LLM synthesized result to a query. I want to read original source material on websites, preferably written by experts, in the field in which my search is targeted.

What I find in serious regression in search, is interpretation of the search query. If I search for something like "Systems containing A but not B" I just get results that contain the words A and B. The logical semantics of asking for "not B" is completely ignored. Using "-B" doesn't work, since many discussions of something that doesn't have B, will mention the word B. These errors didn't seem to be so egregious historically. There seemed to be more correct semantic interpretation of the query.

I don't know if this has to do with applying LLMs in the backend of search, but if LLMs could more accurately interpret what I'm asking for, then I would be happy to have them parse my queries and return links that meet my query specifications more accurately.

But again, I don't want a synthesized result, I want to read original source material. I see the push to make everything LLM synthesized prose, to be just another attempt to put "Big Tech" between me and the info I'm trying to access.

Just link me to the original info please...

p.s. Something like the "semantic web" which would eliminate any 3rd party search agent completely would be the ideal solution.

I like running, and I don't even wear shoes, from nike or any other maker.

The wet sand on the beach at low tide is the ultimate running surface.

And getting away from streets and cars and noise and barking dogs and most of the rest of our idiot primate species is a major mental refreshment, as well as a physical improvment.

I highly recommend it...

p.s. I enjoy sitting too, but like most engineers my work already has me sitting WAY too much. And the authors complaint about corporate "big run" is then followed up with how they start each weekend at a corporate coffee corps. Sad lack of awareness, really.

Here in San Diego (where death of middle class everything is rampant) we have Rudfords:

https://www.rudfords.com/

Open 24 hours/day, on El Cajon Blvd, since 1949

It is an americana throwback that I'm happy to have in the neighborhood...

Isn't that the point?

The levy causes less people to buy the service, this reduces the service's revenue. This causes the service to be more likely to accommodate some kind of regulatory ragine.

Isn't that the point of the levy?

I'm not that simpathetic to people crying about not being able to use this type of service anyway. I've never used one, and won't in the future. I've even mostly stopped using goggle's youtube as teh intrusive ads have increased.

People's addiction to these dis-servies is really the root of the problem.

They'll almost certainly be happier without them...

I bought a used 2023 Nissan Leaf for $15K. It had 18K miles on it, 150 miles of range on a full charge, and still 5 years on the battery warranty, and 2 years on the bumper to bumper warranty. I did admittedly find a good deal, but this is not unobtainium

A friend wanted one of those licensed electric golf carts to drive around town, it cost more than my car.

With off-peak charging, (and the cost of gasoline in San Diego) I expect the car to pay for itself in fuel savings in ~5 years.

How many years will it take an inexpensive gasoline car to pay for itself?

lol at that level of “good deal” one could find a recent low-mileage gas car for half what you paid. $7500k will pay for a lot of gas.

Yes, about 2 years worth at my 300 mile/week usage and San Diego $5/gal gas price.

After which, the gas car continues to use gas, and I continue to save $3000/year by not buying gas...

But your comparison is valid. You could also compare the saving of the small, gas efficient, car to the choice of buying giant, low milage truck or SUV.

BTW, this good deal was not a once in a lifetime thing. I see EVs in this price range on craigslist routinely...

This is especially true, given that advances in battery tech, and fast charging are going to eliminate the need. Recharging as fast a petro fuel filling have already been demo'd.

Of course, here in the US we don't need any of that commonist technology. We're all so great, we're gonna say "Please, Please, don't make me any greater!". Can't wait 8-/

So, qualify what I wrote before with: _in_China_ they'll be able to charge as fast as a refuel.

To jump onto the "comment having nothing to do with the article" pile:

1) I wonder how many of those chargers are tesla? (not the elon windmill tilting argument, but) These chargers are not compatible with many EVs. In my opinion, the well integrated charging network is the single biggest tesla technical advantage, but not much help to many other types of cars.

2) Also, the need to "run the app" for each specific charger vendor, and often a requirement to keep a cash balance on that app account, is a major impediment to easy "public" charger usage. I've never _ever_ seen a gas station that required me to "be a member" to pump gas 8-/ California, at least, should outlaw this restriction. A person should be able to plug in the CC and charge.

3) WRT charger compatibility with a car: I also don't see why "public" chargers don't offer a standard 240v outlet. Then any car's portable charger brick could be plugged in regardless of fast charge compatibility with that charger. This wouldn't provide fast charging, but it would allow pretty much any car to be plugged into pretty much any charger.

4) Almost this entire comments page is dedicated to the "road trip" scenario. My guess would be that for most people this amounts to less than 1% of total miles driven in any given year. For appt dwellers, access to "public" charging is a daily requirement, but for anyone living in a house, it's not. I've owned my used EV for ~9 months, and I've never charged anywhere except my house. I have a gas car I use for long trips, which I hope to replace with a plug-in hybrid eventually. And quite frankly, an EV with a 300+ mile range is enough for a typical vacationer to drive for a full day, and then stay in a charging friendly location.

The idea that people leave their house and need to drive 500 miles, for their commute, is a super minuscule portion of the population. Fixating on that produces invalid conclusions.

Weird, I browse with javascript and cookies disabled, and was able to read the article at nature.com.

So, for those of us down here at the bottom of the karma ladder, after 5000 lines of comments about giving antibiotics to cows, which had nothing to do with the article, there is some actual discussion of the topic.

This inability to bring a product to market is in fact an artifact of the for-profit healthcare system.

Besides the obvious aspects of weight-loss and erectile-dysfunction drugs being more profitable, there is also an issue with imaginary property.

Pharma will not bring a drug to market unless they can own exclusive rights. Since this is a naturally occurring molecule, some tweak will need to be made before the chemical is eligible for a patent.

So until some company can make a custom modification, without disrupting the efficacy, it won't be considered a viable product.

> This inability to bring a product to market is in fact an artifact of the for-profit healthcare system.

If that were the only, or principal, problem then surely we would notice that single payer systems do better by demanding production of other therapies.

How would they "demand" this?

Large pharma is going to develop in the US, where tax dollars fund a significant portion of research, and they get exclusive ownership of the resulting product.

Single payer systems do still display advantages for the drug's users.

Surely you've heard of people in the US buying prescription meds from Canada?

> How would they "demand" this?

By asking a drug company to develop a therapy for a specific condition and offering to pay for it? Couple that with refusing to pay for drugs that do not offer good value for society as a whole.