Renting the same compute resources might cost you less but you are on the hook for maintenance and administration which can cost you more in the long run.
Someone will correct me if I'm wrong but Kagi uses Google search results. I'm sure it's more complicated than that and they have their own secret sauce but it is not an independent search engine.
Kagi Search includes anonymized requests to traditional search indexes like Google and Bing as well as sources like Wikipedia, DeepL, and other APIs. We also have our own non-commercial index (Teclis), news index (TinyGem), and an AI for instant answers. Teclis and TinyGem are a result of our crawl through millions of domains, focusing primarily on non-commercial, high-quality content.
Our unique results combined from all of these sources help you discover the best content you can possibly find online, sometimes from the quieter places on the web.
I would say using Google and Bing makes it not independent but they could invest in further developing their own index if they wanted to go independent.
> We've had those things for way longer than we've had targeted marketing.
You've had way less of those things as well. I'm not defending targeted marketing but you are ignoring that there are way more bakeries and t-shirt shops now than ever. As a small business, you aren't competing against other local t-shirt shops you are competing against every t-shirt shop that can setup a webpage and put a shirt in the mail.
This is basically the value prop for mom n pop shops. If the salesperson is also the owner, they have a lot more incentive to get to know you and steer you towards the things that will be best for you, in order to
1) keep you coming back
2) navigate highly localized politics
Mom n Pop shops are great but getting rid of ads doesn't put the genie back in the bottle when it comes to big box stores and Amazon. It also doesn't solve the shelf space problem. I've found incredibly niche and useful things through online retail ads that a local business would be insane to stock because they would have dead inventory.
> 3M is filing for bankruptcy due to PFAS litigation, and even then they can't cover the costs [0] This doesn't work, the damage is already done, and the profits have been pocketed. What's worse with PFAS for environmental pollution is that no mechanism for clean up currently exists.
Are you suggesting that 3M should continue to operate as if they didn't poison the world? I'm fine with them being bankrupted by the lawsuits. Let it be a warning for the next company.
No, I'm suggesting that even with the worst possible fiscal punishment (even when it causes bankruptcy) it's still not enough, for two reasons:
1. If the damage done is so severe that it's impossible or impractical to reverse, then even in the case of recovering 100% of the profits ever generated, it still won't be enough to fix the damage. A larger long term environmental cost for the many has been traded for a far far smaller short term financial reward for the few.
2. As the sibling commenter pointed out, companies can be used as a financial liability shield, just pay yourself an absurd salary, keep liquid funds and reinvestment low (especially when the game is up), and all that's left is a functioning but otherwise empty husk.
No, he is suggesting that the executives in charge during the production and sale of PFAS products already pocketed their salaries, bonuses, and wealth. It won't be clawed back.
This might be the most "Hacker News" comment I've ever read. Whether or not I agree with the way Brave goes about their business, I'm not going to deny they are trying new things which is the definition of innovation.
Well, neither of the things I mentioned are hard to look up. I even worded them specifically to make it easier to instantly find a source, I just happen to be away from my PC right now or I would have linked the sources myself.
I have not seen any innovation from them so far, sorry to say. They are using a pre-existing browser engine, they are lawyered up and don’t respond to public callouts, and they have a history of doing dumb shit that had their CEO cave and apologise for a “mistake”.
If this is opinion then I think you need to look up what that word really means…
Men have a lot of problems that are under discussed and swept under the rug. Loneliness issues, confidence issues, perception issues, issues with men thinking their life doesn't matter to just name a few. The suicide rate among men is so high for a lot of reasons.
Suicide rate is around 4 times higher for men in Western societies, but suicide attempts by women are at least twice that of men. More lethal, messier suicide methods are more popular among men, and in my opinion, it's because women are socialised to be more considerate of those who will find their body.
> The fundamental fact that Discord users refuse to see is that the platform isn't run on magic dust and fairy incantations, but actual human beings. Using Discord is no different from having a group of strangers sitting in your room with you, noting down every word you say to your friends and everything you run on your computer, and doing the devil knows what with it.
Anyone making this argument doesn't understand why people use Discord. These articles about why Discord is bad crop up over time and they ALL miss the boat. If your argument is that "Discord isn't private" then you've already lost because no one who uses Discord cares about that and you've shown that you don't actually understand Discord.
My main issue about Discord is not what it is, but what it replaced. A lot of websites or forums have been replaced by Discord. It sucks, because it's fundamentally a messaging app, but people will use it for reasons where a website would male sense ("link is in my Discord").
That's on the things (vbulletin forums, etc) that Discord and Reddit have replaced for being so bad that people would prefer using Discord over them. It's hard to blame Discord for making a good product. As to users, a UX principle is that users aren't wrong, the UX is wrong. There's a reason people use Discord for these purposes, and you need to resolve that reason, not make punitive actions towards users.
Well, in fairness, I believe the guy that got caught posting classified docs in a small private discord server would appreciate privacy, even if I myself and a lot of people almost exclusively use public servers and would prefer if they were even less private so internet search would work.
His friends passed the documents along to their friends, and they eventually got the attention of the New York Times. At that point tracing the documents back to him would probably have happened regardless of whether he used IRC or anything else.
Do you have any evidence that him using a centralized platform like Discord played a role in him getting caught?
The Buffalo shooter organized on a public Discord and unfortunately that had no effect in preventing him. But, this is getting back to my initial point, you are using Discord because you are hoping for private communication then you are using the wrong product.
Hypothetically speaking if instead of using Discord normally and using his real info for billing Discord only accepted Monero and was only accessible via Tor it would be harder to identify him.
But that's not really my point, just picking a random famous example of someone who would want Discord to be private.
My Pixel is rapidly coming out on it's drop dead date for security updates and I'm considering just switching to an iPhone SE. I want a small phone that will be supported for a long enough time that I don't have to constantly remind myself when the EOL date is.
