Seriously can someone fix this

No, it’s pretty clear that this is a result of modern “AI”… key word filtering wouldn’t push applicants mentioning basketball/baseball up and softball down, unless HR is explicitly being sexist and classiest/racist like that.

I mean, the problem has existed for sure before ML & AI was being used, but this is pretty clearly the result of an improperly advised/trained dataset which is very different from key word filtering. I don’t think HR a decade ago was giving/deducting extra points on applicants for resumes for mentioning sports/hobbies irrelevant to the job

Yeah, well, that’s just, like, your opinion, man.

I really love this write up, extremely reasonable and makes sense. In the end, it’s no bother to me if I don’t buy it

That sounds more like an issue with that person not being open/receptive to her peers advice. And I think this is true for many people beyond the age of 24 as well

Uh, no. If you’re just a kid at 24 according to OP, when do you stop being a kid? When OP arbitrarily says so now? Could’ve sworn legal age meant something like “when you’re no longer a kid and can make your own decisions”. I mean I agree, 24 year olds are basically kids and still have a lot of life experience to gain. But they’re not actually children like you’re weirdly implying I’m saying

I see/hear about marriages started at 30+ 40+ 50+ all the time that fail. I see people pivot careers and industries in the middle years of their life. People tastes change all the time as they get older. Let’s not pretend that when your brain finishes developing you suddenly have life figured out/know exactly what you want

I generally agree that getting married before 24 is a pretty risky move and you have to have thought it through very carefully, but the argument that “you don’t know what you want for the rest of your life” is not the reason why that is. It relates more to life experience/emotional capability/massive foresight. Marriage is more than just “wanting something for the rest of your life”, it’s a commitment, it’s not just some eternal desire you may/may not have

At what age are you supposed to know what you want for the rest of your life? You will never have an answer to that in any capacity, and not just in marriage. You evolve as a person, you’ll never have a fixed desire for your whole life. And that’s the great thing about marriage and relationships, they also evolve. And it’s about who you want to try doing that with

This had me burst out in laughter real hard omg

Oh you know, there’s that one, and that one, and that other one

Most of the internet uses AWS. Facebook uses AWS. Apple uses AWS. Should they not be a FAANGs then? What are you even getting at? Let’s not act like Netflix has no engineers and that it’s actually all completely Amazon’s engineering work. Like if you’re seriously insinuating Netflix doesn’t have any technical achievements idk what to say

They don’t develop any particularly incredible tech aside from the one their whole product is based around and enabled them to be an industry leader 🙈

While I agree that this does avoid enshitification, it’s always possible for a privately owned company to IPO. That’s why all of us are even here to begin with

I don’t act like cattle, so I’m gonna continue complaining 😃

Makes sense, but yea it didn’t really answer the overall question of “if it hits peak market penetration how will it avoid going the Google route” since google also started with the same premise. I suppose the answer is hope it doesn’t become a monopoly

Just curious, in the hypothetical situation that 100% of users on the web used Kagi how is it any different? They’ll demand more growth at that point but how would they achieve it? I don’t see how paying for the service avoids the issue of the product becoming worse as a result of peak market penetration and needing new methods of growth

I totally get what you’re saying, but that’s not at all what religion is. If someone is listening to voices in their head, they’re not religious. They’re just crazy. I know many religious people who do not “listen to voices in their head” and it’s my belief that you’ve had terrible encounters and experiences with people claiming to be religious. But to generalize is not a good thing. I’ve met very sane religious people that do not do the things you say, I think it’s unfair of you to make such a sweeping claim that anyone who claims to be religious is immediately a crazy person to you. That idea itself sounds crazy to me

That citation abstract very clearly says “could link” prostate cancer and biological processes and “may lower” prostate cancer risk, it’s definitely not as clear cut as you’re making it sound. The paper itself isn’t even confident about the statements it’s making

This doesn’t make any sense, who distributes/gives out rights tokens? And if they lose publishing rights, why would the new owner of the publishing rights care about the rights tokens they didn’t sell?

Blockchain doesn’t fix anything new here, there’s no point in decentralizing the rights ownership, verifying ourselves as owners of the right to watch the media was never the issue here.

Getting companies to be willing to give out non revokable rights tokens is the issue, and no company wants to do that because it’s not profitable for them. It’s not a technological issue that blockchain is going to solve