joonazan

It is the best on the market but unfortunately they just use Google underneath plus their own blog index. And at least to me it seems it isn't going in a better direction.

The US sounds extremely expensive. In the EU 1500$ a month will pay for a very nice apartment close to work.

I feel like the quality of her videos is way down but I am ND and found that video pretty neutral.

I skimmed a transcript just now because I wanted to understand why people are so disproportionately mad about it. She mentions Autism Speaks and does not immediately condemn it. Is that it? I wouldn't say that counts as being wrong on everything.

I'm tired of (especially internet) discourse where shouting which camp you belong to is most important. One good example is when people accused Amnesty of siding with Russia because they reported on Ukrainian warcrimes. Nothing is truly neutral but I much prefer information or thought experiments over the virtue signaling that has taken over the internet.

You will not convince people to change their mind by shouting in their faces that your point of view is correct. Granted, you usually wont change people's mind online anyway, except entrenching them deeper into their existing beliefs. I don't think that is a good thing regardless of the side they take. It leads to seeing fellow humans as monsters just because they are wrong about something.

It can't create a radically new art style or new information. It would be great if we could harness it as a search engine instead of an oracle.

Indeed. You pay them for their work, not for what they do with their life.

it is better than the competition but it will never be like Google before 2019 because they'll never build their own index.

The car/bus comparison is useful, the others aren't because they travel at different speeds.

Probably walking can still move more people than cars. If walking is 5 kph and driving is 50, people need to take 10x less space to break even. They probably do, as cars need to keep distance.

I think it is funny to make this an ethics discussion when there is plenty of evidence that bacon and sausage cause digestive tract cancers. Meat is also pretty expensive unless heavily subsidized.

I think the main focus should be on educating people that a healthy diet contains a very small amount of meat even though the meat industry has managed to make people think it should be in every meal.

While researching another issue, I found some evidence that a vegan diet can be better than the average meat diet. This could be because the meat in pet food is of poor quality and is more likely to be spoiled than plants.

You could of course grow mice or purchase expensive meats but once it is well-rearched, a vegan diet may be a more economical way to provide a good nutrient profile.

There is but most people prefer to pretend they understand rather than seek a scientific understanding.

It's about minimizing the annoyance for the majority of users who will misspell some popular thing.

Also, I believe that showing actually interesting content is bad for the businesses because it might make the user stop to think and pursue something meaningful instead of continuing to use the product.

I interpreted your first comment as meaning that you are supposed to hate the book because of its topic as many people seem to think whenever it is brought up.

Rowling has said a lot more questionable things, though. And even written books about her insane opinions. Calling Lolita a love story makes sense, as that is the protagonist's point of view, even though the story is also many other things.