[-] dlrht@lemm.ee 50 points 8 months ago

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

[-] dlrht@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago

This had me burst out in laughter real hard omg

[-] dlrht@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

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

[-] dlrht@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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

[-] dlrht@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago

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 🙈

[-] dlrht@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

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

[-] dlrht@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

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

[-] dlrht@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago

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

[-] dlrht@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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

[-] dlrht@lemm.ee -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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

[-] dlrht@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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

[-] dlrht@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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

view more: ‹ prev next ›

dlrht

joined 1 year ago