Wall Street Journal

Current Affairs adopted one of publishing's strictest AI policies as part of its union contract, arguing that tools built to replace workers must be resisted. The article's example: 100 AI posts in four minutes at almost no cost versus 20 human posts for $5,000.

On HN, a commenter posted a parable of fifty diggers with shovels versus five with machines to argue no one will care who wrote what. The reply that stuck: dirt is paid for by the hole, but writing is only worth anything if someone chooses to read it.

The WSJ piece argues high-mileage EV batteries are outlasting fears, citing a 2025 Recurrent study (1-in-12 for 2011–2016 cars vs 0.3% for 2022-on) and Geotab data that heavy fast-charging loses range twice as fast.

The thread's survivorship-bias catch is clean: of course a three-year-old car hasn't needed a replacement yet — and every article like this skips the calendar-age degradation that kills batteries regardless of miles.