621–630 of 639 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So instead you’ll give money to Google, which totally won’t do shady stuff with it?
My browser of choice is Firefox, not Chrome. As I said, because Google does shady stuff too, I avoid giving them money when possible. It's not that hard to prioritize companies that are aligned with your values. You don't need to start living in a cave or self-flagellate. Just look around to see if there is a suitable alternative.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My browser of choice is Firefox, not Chrome. As I said, because Google does shady stuff too, I avoid giving them money when possible. It's not that hard to prioritize companies that are aligned with your values. You don't need to start living in a cave or self-flagellate. Just look around to see if there is a suitable alternative.
We’re talking about search engines, not browsers.
Then yes, I use Google for my search engine. They do shady stuff, but they never campaigned against same-sex marriage, and none of the alternatives have given me good enough results and an acceptable political alignment for me to switch. Brave certainly doesn't seem much better, with unacceptable political stances and worse search results. DDG is getting there, but the search results are still not good enough to replace Google for me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I wish they dedicated more time to it. What changes you have in mind to search functionality? I feel like the core search is rock solid as is, but they address search quality reports on their feedback forums all the time. To me, the AI features (and specifically how they are only used when you opt in per query) are enhancing search, and the time they have been allocating to those features has continuously improved…
I love Kagi, I'm an early paying subscriber, but I think the quality of their results is overstated. Anytime you get past result #5 or so, the results just get _weird_. If you have to do deep research on something, you'll often get pages that seemingly have nothing to do with the query, or these class of pages that seem to be poor answers to common queries aggregated together.
The modern, more polished Google search can make it literally impossible to find things that exist, because Google tries too hard to provide what it thinks you're looking for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
.. and then the founder decided to harangue the author in email. Guy can't seem to stop stepping on his own dick. https://hackers.town/@lori/112255132348604770
Yeah.. I can understand where the author's coming from not wanting to be on a call or get emailed by the founder, but this is such an immediate assumption of bad "fatih" on their part, and a tactless way of communicating that, that I don't consider it a great look for the author. I'm not even arguing people should assume good faith until proven otherwise (I don't think we should, generally). Just that being so steadf…
If this were an occasional occurrence, I would agree with you, but it seems to happen systematically. Perhaps it's an exaggerated and counterproductive way of reacting.
People have the right to hold different opinions without feeling compelled to try to convince others of their own views or to be persuaded by others' opinions. Accepting that people can have differing viewpoints demonstrates respect for diversity of opinion and individual freedom of thought.
The concept of accepting different opinions without trying to convince each other implies respect for intellectual autonomy and freedom of thought for each individual, while still encouraging open dialogue and constructive engagement __when appropriate__.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It'd be reasonable if it was achievable. News are always colored by politics. And usually the people who want "apolitical" news are just defending the status quo they've internalized as the baseline (which especially in the US is by no means a commonly understood one).
Let's put it a different way, if Vlad wasn't apolitical, like all the haters seem to be complaining about, I wouldn't be paying Kagi any money, it wouldn't even be on my radar. While no one can truly be unbiased, I want them to try. Arguments against this are just sophist nonsense, and I'm not convinced they are made in good faith.
Someone who believes in objective truth believes their own viewpoint to be the only valid viewpoint, as indeed we see in the quotes in TFA.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All news is political.
Oh really? So when some local newspaper reports about some random old person in an old-age home that's political? Please, take this destructive attitude and reassess it. Not all things are political and making them so actively makes the world worse.
Political isn't always negative but the news is always political. All news, including good sources like NPR, is promoting a point of view. Nothing is impartial even if that's the goal. Ignoring this doesn't change it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting take. It is valid and don't take my alternative interpretation as suggesting otherwise. I owned a business for 18 years. For 15 of those years it was my primary source of income. I valued feedback, tried my hardest to solicit as much of it as possible, and always took it to heart (though I had to always try and glean statistics from the sum of all feedback so that I was never spending resources on minorit…
.. and then the founder decided to harangue the author in email. Guy can't seem to stop stepping on his own dick. https://hackers.town/@lori/112255132348604770