I have to admit that I cringe a bit when (usually young) guys brag about how good they are at making women cum but they make way more sense than this guy.
It's interesting that users on the Kagi forums report different answers. It seems that both US and Canadian customers may see either Lake Ontario or Lake America.
That would suggest that pulling from MapBox is orthogonal to the decision of what to show the end user.
I was sadly surprised to find out that Kagi maps follwed Trumps lead on misnaming both the Gulf of Mexico and Lake Ontario.
I'm likely to ditch them over this. It's not just a matter of principal. If I can't trust them to stand up to Trumps temper tantrums on this, how can I trust that any of their other results haven't been tampered with?
It has some grains of truth but it's mingled with too much personal opinion.
There are studies on how much water humans really need. If you want to calculate it the scientific way, you need to factor in at least lean muscle mass, total mass, surface area, ambient temperature and humidity, activity levels, and diet. There's no magic number of ounces that's correct for everyone.
Fortunately we've evolved a really awesome mechanism. When your body needs more water, you get thirsty.
So if you want to stay properly hydrated, drink whenever you feel even a little thirsty.
It takes work to turn them into useful search engines. Set up librewolf. Drop in at least a search and a fetch agent. Wrap it in a some prompts to make sure you get actual links.
On my extremely non-scientific scale I'd rate that setup somewhere between barebones Kagi and pre-enshitified Google in terms of results.
I'm hopeful that an actual agent framework will do a better job that's significantly more work. If you just log onto a SaaS LLM you'll get very unpredictable search results.
How about food then? About 50% of the food on earth relies on the Haber Bosch process.
Are we willing to give up half our food?
You're absolutely correct that there are many environmentally beneficial choices we can make with minimal impact on our welfare. It's a lie to pretend that any significant amount of it can be done at no cost. We just need to be willing to pay that cost.
I'm curious why you see my comment as a defense of shareholders?
The beneficiaries of faster transportation, abundant food, and vast material wealth are the consumers. The shareholders only benefit indirectly in that they can take their money and consume goods and services that others have produced.
That's a tradeoff that happens no matter what economic system we choose. I'm also not even suggesting that we pull back on addressing climate change; I'm saying that this is an ineffective way to advocate for it.
No they absolutely weren’t. Commonwealth only worked to promote cooperation between member states. It was not like it had any real power over any of the member states.
How would you categorize the status of Canada vis a vis Britain before the Balfour declaration?
No because if they tried, it wouldn’t work. Which makes Canada NOT a vassal state. And it wasn’t not even in theory.
Do you realize that's exactly what, "For all practical purposes.." means?
Rather than argue semantics I'd rather rephrase the same statement using different words in the hopes that that removes confusion.
The comic essentially argues that we can fight climate change at no cost. That's nonsense. The cost is there and it's quite steep. The better argument is that even the high cost is worth it because the cost of not fighting climate change are much higher.
When you look around your room do you not see a plethora of goods made by polluting industries?
Do you travel exclusively by foot?
Do you eat only foods that can be brought to your area without refrigerated trucks?
Other's have certainly reaped the lions share of the profits from pollution but we reaped huge benefits from it. None of us are willing to give up the computers or network infrastructure we're using to have this conversation so it's safe to say that those computers and the network infrastructure are benefits that we value.
I'm a big fan of protecting our environment but this fails because it's a straw man.
Everyone knows that the things we get far more than "nothing" from our rampant pollution. We get fast transportation, abundant food, and vast material wealth.
If we were really giving up "nothing" it would be an easy choice. Very few people would be willing to pollute just for the sake of polluting. Even if we only got a little bit of benefit from pollution there would still be incentive to pollute.
Instead we get a ton of benefit out of pollution and we'd have to give them up if we wanted to stop polluting.
The more honest take is that polluting activities have a tradeoff. If we keep polluting at our current rate, we'll eventually push the ecosystem to a state where it can't sustain us. We need to be willing to make some hard sacrifices to prevent that and we need to identify those sacrifices, rather than pretending they don't exist.
Technically, Canada was a vassal of the UK until fairly recently. The laws dismantling that technicality started in 1926 and were mostly finalized in 1982. They still have an odd vestige of that where the Canadia monarch is defined as whoever happens to be the British monarch at the time.
For all practical purposes, the Brits haven't held sovereignty over Canada in ages.
While the US was never officially Canada's suzerain, the vast differences in economies, militaries, and populations mean that diplomatic and trade negotiations are tilted in the favor of the US.
The whole advantage of soft power over hard power is that it enforces vassalage without looking like it's enforcing vassalage.
It would be pretty messed up if the punishment came before the crime.
My point, in this case is that the crime has been ongoing. Bullying and harassment aren't new. What's new is that we now have a lot of it recorded. This gives us an unprecedented ability to prosecute a class of crimes that people have been committing with impunity.
The biggest downside is that it would likely be short-lived. If there were a bunch of headlines about people getting giant civil judgements, bullies would probably learn to be more careful about generating evidence of their crimes.
That would likely initially focus on attempting to hide the videos from the general public but I suspect they would eventually learn that doesn't work; courts can compel discovery. They would probably also try to modify their on-screen behavior so it doesn't technically qualify as a crime but I expect they would mostly fail at that.
That said there would likely always be some cohort of dumb criminals who continue to record their misdeeds. We still see cases where people discuss their crimes over unencrypted email and we still see cases of criminals taking selfies with their crimes
I have to admit that I cringe a bit when (usually young) guys brag about how good they are at making women cum but they make way more sense than this guy.
That would be the Mercury Mistress.
https://www.reddit.com/r/LiveFromNewYork/comments/1ql7ur6/the_mercury_mistress_1998/
Obviously NSFW. Pardon the reddit link. I wasn't able to find a better one.
It's interesting that users on the Kagi forums report different answers. It seems that both US and Canadian customers may see either Lake Ontario or Lake America.
That would suggest that pulling from MapBox is orthogonal to the decision of what to show the end user.
I wish it did but that doesn't really help me.
I'd rather a few services are good rather than that every service sinks to lowest level.
I was sadly surprised to find out that Kagi maps follwed Trumps lead on misnaming both the Gulf of Mexico and Lake Ontario.
I'm likely to ditch them over this. It's not just a matter of principal. If I can't trust them to stand up to Trumps temper tantrums on this, how can I trust that any of their other results haven't been tampered with?
It has some grains of truth but it's mingled with too much personal opinion.
There are studies on how much water humans really need. If you want to calculate it the scientific way, you need to factor in at least lean muscle mass, total mass, surface area, ambient temperature and humidity, activity levels, and diet. There's no magic number of ounces that's correct for everyone.
Fortunately we've evolved a really awesome mechanism. When your body needs more water, you get thirsty.
So if you want to stay properly hydrated, drink whenever you feel even a little thirsty.
Alex, I'll take false equivalences for $400.
I like summer and if that racist shithead Michael Richards disagrees I'm doubling down.
It takes work to turn them into useful search engines. Set up librewolf. Drop in at least a search and a fetch agent. Wrap it in a some prompts to make sure you get actual links.
On my extremely non-scientific scale I'd rate that setup somewhere between barebones Kagi and pre-enshitified Google in terms of results.
I'm hopeful that an actual agent framework will do a better job that's significantly more work. If you just log onto a SaaS LLM you'll get very unpredictable search results.
Such as...
How about food then? About 50% of the food on earth relies on the Haber Bosch process.
Are we willing to give up half our food?
You're absolutely correct that there are many environmentally beneficial choices we can make with minimal impact on our welfare. It's a lie to pretend that any significant amount of it can be done at no cost. We just need to be willing to pay that cost.
I'm curious why you see my comment as a defense of shareholders?
The beneficiaries of faster transportation, abundant food, and vast material wealth are the consumers. The shareholders only benefit indirectly in that they can take their money and consume goods and services that others have produced.
That's a tradeoff that happens no matter what economic system we choose. I'm also not even suggesting that we pull back on addressing climate change; I'm saying that this is an ineffective way to advocate for it.
Right. I forgot that Americans think anything older than 100 years is ancient history.
How would you categorize the status of Canada vis a vis Britain before the Balfour declaration?
Do you realize that's exactly what, "For all practical purposes.." means?
Rather than argue semantics I'd rather rephrase the same statement using different words in the hopes that that removes confusion.
The comic essentially argues that we can fight climate change at no cost. That's nonsense. The cost is there and it's quite steep. The better argument is that even the high cost is worth it because the cost of not fighting climate change are much higher.
When you look around your room do you not see a plethora of goods made by polluting industries?
Do you travel exclusively by foot?
Do you eat only foods that can be brought to your area without refrigerated trucks?
Other's have certainly reaped the lions share of the profits from pollution but we reaped huge benefits from it. None of us are willing to give up the computers or network infrastructure we're using to have this conversation so it's safe to say that those computers and the network infrastructure are benefits that we value.
I'm a big fan of protecting our environment but this fails because it's a straw man.
Everyone knows that the things we get far more than "nothing" from our rampant pollution. We get fast transportation, abundant food, and vast material wealth.
If we were really giving up "nothing" it would be an easy choice. Very few people would be willing to pollute just for the sake of polluting. Even if we only got a little bit of benefit from pollution there would still be incentive to pollute.
Instead we get a ton of benefit out of pollution and we'd have to give them up if we wanted to stop polluting.
The more honest take is that polluting activities have a tradeoff. If we keep polluting at our current rate, we'll eventually push the ecosystem to a state where it can't sustain us. We need to be willing to make some hard sacrifices to prevent that and we need to identify those sacrifices, rather than pretending they don't exist.
It depends on how pedantic we want to get.
Technically, Canada was a vassal of the UK until fairly recently. The laws dismantling that technicality started in 1926 and were mostly finalized in 1982. They still have an odd vestige of that where the Canadia monarch is defined as whoever happens to be the British monarch at the time.
For all practical purposes, the Brits haven't held sovereignty over Canada in ages.
While the US was never officially Canada's suzerain, the vast differences in economies, militaries, and populations mean that diplomatic and trade negotiations are tilted in the favor of the US.
The whole advantage of soft power over hard power is that it enforces vassalage without looking like it's enforcing vassalage.
To be fair, "Give alms freely", is one of the 5 pillars of Islam.
It would be pretty messed up if the punishment came before the crime.
My point, in this case is that the crime has been ongoing. Bullying and harassment aren't new. What's new is that we now have a lot of it recorded. This gives us an unprecedented ability to prosecute a class of crimes that people have been committing with impunity.
The biggest downside is that it would likely be short-lived. If there were a bunch of headlines about people getting giant civil judgements, bullies would probably learn to be more careful about generating evidence of their crimes.
That would likely initially focus on attempting to hide the videos from the general public but I suspect they would eventually learn that doesn't work; courts can compel discovery. They would probably also try to modify their on-screen behavior so it doesn't technically qualify as a crime but I expect they would mostly fail at that.
That said there would likely always be some cohort of dumb criminals who continue to record their misdeeds. We still see cases where people discuss their crimes over unencrypted email and we still see cases of criminals taking selfies with their crimes