Seriously can someone fix this

IG comments are absolutely hilarious

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

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

The contrast though is that you don’t “earn” heaven either. Nothing makes a Christian and a non Christian so inherently different from each other that one fundamentally deserves heaven and the other hell. It’s saved by faith, not by works

We can agree to disagree then. You didn’t really explain anything either.

We’re an inherently selfish species from a biological perspective, people aren’t just fundamentally altruistic. If evolution shaped our morals to encourage us to be nice to each other to benefit the whole species, why is it still such a struggle for people to be selfless?

I find it very hard for you to convince me that as a species we are neutral when the very people we put into power and govern over us are narcissists and power hungry people who have little care about every individuals lives that they govern over and are obsessed with self gain.

On an individual level, being altruistic/good natured/selfless is something that has to be fostered and you have to be intentional about. Growing up, we’re taught lessons, in school and in media, etc., on how to be good/how to treat others. We’re taught to do good things and don’t do bad things. Why? Because our nature is to do bad things

If you have to be intentional about being good and not being bad, then that means your default state is being bad. It’s easy to be selfish and only do things that you want and only care about yourself, because that’s our nature as a species.

I don’t agree that we just “are” and that we just “exist”, it just sounds like someone that doesn’t want to face the truth that mankind is not a perfect species. Vague statements like “we can only be as evil as we are good” doesn’t actually mean anything. You just stated a bunch of facts like “death gives life meaning” and “shadow defines light”. Sure. I agree. So what? Nothing that you said really clarified why humans aren’t inherently bad in your eyes. You just said a bunch of generic statements that not even Christians disagree with as if I’m supposed to understand why your position makes sense now

I typically nod politely when Christians talk to me, it’s just easier.

So when you say “whatever you say” it’s just easier, but when I say it in reply to a one word comment that’s just disrespectful it’s me trying to convert someone to Christianity… ok. Do you not see your hypocrisy? You are the one who is accusing me of something and when I justify myself and disagree you’re just like “I’m wasting my time”. I did not come into your conversation to tell you about Christianity, you came into mine to tell me I’m trying to convert someone when i wasn’t at all. I was literally just equally replying snarkily

I understand non Christian povs. I’m just saying, Christian discussion or not, “death-cultsplainin’” was never appropriate and is an unwarranted response. That’s all there is to it. There’s nothing more to explain there. I don’t come into a soccer team discussion and say “cultist” to a person who is a fan of one team. Christian or not it’s disrespectful and non contributive. You’re just trying to justify rude behaviour because you’re personally tired of theological discussions.

Do you agree that the original “death-cultsplainin’” comment is unwarranted or do you think their comment was necessary and justified? Like be objective about it. If you think it’s the latter, then we can just agree to disagree on how we engage in online discourse. In any context, I prefer not to call people cultists without explanation and think that’s inappropriate, and you can prefer to think that’s fine, sure. But such comments objectively lead to lower quality conversations and negative vitriol so I choose to say it’s not appropriate and adds nothing to these threads aside from raising negative emotions. You don’t have to be Christian to understand my sentiment. I understand yours fine. I’m just telling you why its not appropriate.

Yes, I know all of this and get it. I get that you’re tired of it. But all I see is someone being unnecessarily snarky in someone else’s conversation and you defending and justifying it with “we’re tired of it”. I didn’t make a big deal of it at all, if someone’s going to disrespect me like that I’m not giving it the time of day, but you’re here justifying it so now I have to reply why it’s not an ok response and have to justify my own reply because you projected that I am trying to convert this random drive by commenter when I was clearly not

Why don’t we just accept that you two are being unnecessarily disrespectful? I do not enter other people’s conversations and reply with “I don’t want to hear this”. That’s all there is to it

You make a really excellent point, and I think I retract what I have posited. But I think nobody being exempt of fault is quite true, no?

I don’t know what part of “death-cultsplainin’” and me replying with “copium” makes you think there was a “conversation” going on

Let me explain my thoughts. I have taken time to write up something for someone else and someone- an unrelated party, barges in and pretty rudely replies with no intention to say anything, just to write a snide one word comment as if it’s supposed to be anything other than a disrespectful comment.

Does it seem like when I said “thanks for contributing nothing to our discussion” I was trying to convert someone? I don’t know where you got that idea. I was expressing that one word replies aren’t good conversation at all. It’s just annoying. My thoughts here are that it’s pretty rude to come into a conversation just to go “haha cultist”. I think people who look down on religion need to stop finding every opportunity to disrespect and be condescending to others who are invested in the topic.

Someone asked questions and I was just answering them. And for some reason you think I am in the wrong here when someone is clearly replying to me without an interest in actually talking to me. You know that person could have easily said nothing. If someone “may not want to hear it again” there are numerous solutions to this: close the thread, collapse the comment, reply with “sorry I really don’t like this”. Snarkily replying with “cultist” is not one of them. It’s just rude and disrespectful. Maybe you guys should stop conflating disrespect with actual expression of disinterest, because it’s not.

In no circumstance do I find one word snarky replies a sufficient or respectful way to reply to someone engaging in an actual discussion. Like ever. Religious discussion context or not, it’s just a terrible reply. Idk why you think me replying with “yes whatever you want” is somehow me trying to convince him into a religion, like what. You are projecting and inserting things into this situation that are not there

The notion is mind boggling because being guilty by proxy is not how it works anyway. If you could find a 100% objectively guiltless man I’d totally concede that guilt by proxy is how it works, but let’s face it, literally everyone on this earth is not perfect or blameless. You don’t need a proxy to be guilty, everyone already is, its not hard to see when you look at the people in the world

If every man after Adam is guilty by proxy, Jesus would’ve been guilty as well as soon as he was born. But Christianity clearly posits the opposite of that