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

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

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

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