As a relatively long-time Kagi user (March of 2022) I would encourage people to give their LLM aggregator, Kagi Assistant, a try. It won't suffice for everyone, but having access to all of the major LLMs is super useful to me. With one subscription, you can have premium search and an excellent LLM aggregator that cites sources using Kagi search. It's pretty rad. Both my wife and I pay for Ultimate subscriptions, and we have child accounts for our daughters.
I've tried Kagi Assistant several times... I haven't really found my usage to be sticky though, I'm not entirely clear what I'd use it for on a regular basis where it would be an improvement over my current (LLM-free) workflow.
This has always struck me as pretty weak. Yes, paying Yandex indirectly results in paying taxes to the Russian government. But people are rarely so dogmatic about these matters. There are lots of despotic and tyrannical regimes in the world, under which companies must operate because people live there who must try to make a living. Punishing the people at those companies because they're obligated ot pay taxes to their rulers strikes me as rather ridiculous.
Kagi is awesome. I appreciate the Yandex results. I'm not a big fan of Russia.
> There are lots of despotic and tyrannical regimes in the world, under which companies must operate because people live there who must try to make a living.
Right, but there's lots of companies in the world. Lots more than there are tyrannical regimes. Lots more than there are total regimes! We're not individually obligated to support each of them, when they financially support things we find abhorrent.
Yes, people buy oil from middle eastern tyrannies, everything from China, things made from dubiously sourced raw materials etc. - but they somehow draw the line at one particular conflict or nation (not always Russia).
Well, you have to start drawing lines somewhere, and focus on an issue or two that are important to you. You will only end up spreading yourself thin (and not making an impact at all with anything) if you try to draw every line "correctly".
Holding and adhering to personal principles is the opposite of weak. You might disagree with that person's decision, but that does not make them (or their decision) weak.
Yandex isn't just an honest business trying to survive in Putin's Russia, it actively manipulates results to push Kremlin propaganda. It only returned negative coverage about Navalny and called it an "experiment" when it was caught. It actively blocks images of Putin when you search for "bunker grandpa", a common nickname for him. It replaces links to the anti-Putin Freedom of Russia Legion and the Russian Volunteer Corps with links to FSB-controlled honeypots. Its largest shareholders are Russian oligarchs, state-owned banks and oil companies.
Maybe they have to do it to survive, who knows, but you don't have to use their services or products that resell their services.
Who cares. Doesn't matter who did it, it matters that it happened and you're about to commit the same mistakes again. It matters that you let this slide just because he's your guy.
For real. I feel like we need a PSA about how many of us aren't supporters of the opposition just because we don't like 'your guy'.
Ronald Reagan was a trash goblin who destroyed our economy to enrich the wealthy.
So was Bill Clinton.
George Bush was a war criminal who indiscriminately bombed brown people.
So was Obama.
Hillary Clinton was a huckster con artist who worked for her wealthy friends.
So is Trump.
Your dichotomy is a trap. There are no good guys because the system itself is rigged in favor of militaristic capitalist oligarchs, which is the actual problem.
For fucks sake, an irrelevant partisan jab is all you can comment? Save that drivel for Reddit and please put a little more thought into your contributions here.
Point is, an Executive Order issued by the President did this to natural born citizens of the United States based on their ethnic background.
Why wouldn't they? He's the president. As an official of the state he shouldn't say it if he doesn't mean it. The president isn't supposed to be fun or jokey
Yes? Nothing about the prospect of him revoking the citizenship of one of his longtime bugbears seems unlikely at this point. The fact that we're even discussing the "will he, won't he, who knows" right now should be alarming.
> Do people still take his comments like that seriously?
Yes, because he has a pattern of staking out one extreme position and then doing something slightly less extreme; but both of which would have been unthinkable when laws and due process meant something.
And also, yes, because joking around is something you do on your own time and when you’re a child. Like not wanting your pilot to announce his intention to do some aerobatic maneuvers on an airline flight. Whether they carry it out or not is almost beside the point.
He's given us more reason to take him seriously than not at this point, you can probably measure it objectively. He's practically perfected "just kidding... unless"
It’s not all state dollars though. There’s a Medicaid match for ACA expansion populations. The OBBB reduces that match by 10% for states that expanded the population to include unauthorized immigrants. In Oregon, to maintain that program Oregonians are going to have to pony up hundreds of millions more per year. Much of the country is fine with that.
I had a knee injury. Called my local orthopedic clinic (seven doctors). The lady who answered the phone told me I’d need to schedule an appointment . . . to schedule the appointment. I was three weeks out from the call at which I would schedule the appointment that would likely be months after that. American medicine is totally broken.
Wait -- I have to pay for a breathalizer in my new vehicle because other people can't follow the law? That's BS. I don't drink alcohol and I hate everything about this.
When it comes to motor vehicles we're CONSTANTLY paying for other people's mistakes. The unfortunate reality is that driving is the number 1 cause of death for most demographics.
We cannot treat it like we treat other things, simply due to the extreme risk. That means we have to prevent accidents any way we can and put safety nets where we can.
Yes, it sucks that now you're going to have to pay marginally more for your vehicle. If it's any consolation, you're already paying 10x more than you should for the variety of safety structures in place, research, testing, regulations, policing, etc. The fruits of this are real, though. Please look into vehicle fatality statistics.
Tbf the reason we treat autos risk like this is less about the extreme risk of autos and more about politics and culture.
There 1001 ways we could ensure that most of the cost and externalities of driving are not foisted on others, but we don’t do that because so many people drive and most vote, if they think getting fewer auto deaths means they’ll have to pay $0.01 for parking or that they might be 1% more likely to be caught when they speed, they reject it.
So instead we socialize it, pushing costs, inconveniences, injuries and death on others.
After she got hit, ultimately leading to her death in time, by an uninsured guy we had to get a lawyer and fight Eire Insurance for three years for them to honor that line on the bill.
This isn't an argument for absolutely any cost one should choose to impose. I had a hard time finding exact stats but one should I think assume that less than 1/10th of 1% of cars have such a device installed.
This means that one is installing 1000 devices for each one in use. It should make more sense to me to provide a means to communicate with such a device wirelessly and software support for making starting contingent on such communication.
I don't believe any of the founders believed they were creating a "true democracy," or even that it would be desirable. Read Federalist Number 10. The modern fetishism of democracy will lead bad places.
Yes, pretty much all claims of democracy come from the 20th century. I hardly think we were a more functional country at the time, though—it's only through the miracle of rampant exploitation we didn't all just immediately start killing each other. Thank god for the civil war to kick us to continue booting up a democracy.
One day we'll finish the job, I swear. Pinky-promise.
It's because this particular advisor has the full backing of the duly-elected President. It's absolutely wild to me that HN refuses to acknowledge this fact. This idea that the civil servants should defy the President (and his advisor) is substantiating the deep state critiques from the right.
As a Canadian I disagree entirely. Our prime minister Stephen Harper years ago muzzled scientists who had time sensitive, extremely pertinent research to act on. After he was replaced, that research was immediately put to use in policy making. Throughout his term, scientists in the public service spoke out about what was happening.
If justice is important to a democracy, these scientists did the right thing. That takes real courage.
I see no difference in what’s happening in the American public service. The processes occurring now are not democratic in nature. Musk’s role is extremely unorthodox and only ostensibly voted for ‘by the people’.
In the weeks since Trump took office, I see no hard evidence to support any kind of deep state corruption. I see inefficiency, and yet, I see that in how DOGE dismantles things as well. I see it in every organization I work in, in every industry, in every home. It’s inevitable.
Yes, but to the degree you believe in "democracy," then you believe the duly-elected President gets to come in and make changes, provided he's acting within the scope of the law. Trump specifically ran on the DOGE/Musk platform/strategy. It was a major component of his closing argument. This is, in fact, the exercise of popular will -- that is, "democracy."
Civil servants ultimately work for the President. That's how it works. There have been many reductions in force prompted by Presidents over time (my own grandfather took one in the seventies). I appreciate there is some disagreement about whether Trump is tripping over any specific laws, but to the degree he's not (the courts will answer that), then he's well within his right to take the direct advice of his advisors, and to act within the scope of his authorities. The President also has the power to get access to even the most confidential information (how could he not?), and to share that with his advisors who have the requisite security clearances (which in many cases he can dictate).
I'm just stunned by all the hand wringing about access to "government data." They're government employees!
