I read the post, hence my points. I am not really looking for answers, because I don’t have questions, I had observations. You on the other hand seem to have your whole opinion formed on this inaccurate post, and I would expect someone in your position to look for more perspectives, when you clearly are not. You seem instead on a crusade against the company (good for you), and even if all the post was true, because they spent too much on t-shirts, invested too much in AI products (that I repeat, are opt-in)? Because they don’t comply with a technicality of GDPR? Lol Ok, more power to you.

Also, what I mean by a subscription is that I cancel it and I am done. I didn’t invest in it in any shape or form, what I paid I consumed already, there is no feeling of wasting previous investment in a running subscription.

Judging from your attitude, your lack of content, your very annoying “homie”, your inability to address any point against the content of the article, I am guessing either you are the author and you are butthurt that is not taken as gospel, or you just have ulterior motives and you are here just to stir shit (instead of “spreading awareness”). Either way, I have already invested too much time writing responses to your silly comments. I will show you how good I am in avoiding the sunk cost fallacy and block you, despite the time invested in the conversation.

Cya

I answered with more stuff in other comments, but you didn’t address any of that anyway.

I personally have no brand faith, I am a happy customer and the moment the company doesn’t adhere to my principles I will dump it. There is no sunk cost as it’s a running subscription (you keep mentioning this, so I though I will say it).

That said, if I see someone claiming they have a “blase” approach to privacy or they don’t care about it, I will point out that this is complete bullshit. Using the missing “download my data” feature to support this claim is outright pathetic.

To be even more precise, as a socialist I don’t like many of Vlad’s ideas that tend towards libertarianism. That said, the company has a good amount of worker ownership, it operates on principles I currently respect and that are miles higher than the standard tech company. I am absolutely in favour of supporting positive business in a field where companies are disgusting on average, and in cases evil.

Now, if you have anything else than childish arguments I am happy to discuss them. I have pointed to a number of inaccuracies in the article, there are outdated data (like the number of employees) and subjective views from the author. You are posting this article everywhere like it’s some kind of holy grail of gotchas, when it’s not. There are some good points (financial reporting exists, is not 100% transparent - which is not due, the amount spent for the t-shirts was IMHO not a great idea, etc.), but the fundamental points against the company are shacky at best. As I said elsewhere, all the shpiel about AI etc. is fully addressed in kagi own site where they clearly explain what they mean, for example. The features are actually pretty nice, even for someone like me who is not a fan of LLMs, and the results are quite accurate (the post author claims they are almost always wrong) from my experience.

BTW my searches are unlimited :)

They don’t own the T-shirt factory. It is a simple sentence, they used a small Serbian (I think) company. The business entity is to import goods.

It’s a formal difference but shows how sloppy that post is.

So, again, sorry for trying to point out that the CEO of Kagi does NOT care about privacy, GDPR, or transparency!

Privacy != anonymity. They satisfy the most important aspects of the GDRP, like data and scope minimization, clear explanation of what data they collect and why, a fantastic privacy policy. They don’t let you download a file with your email address in it, woah.

That article is quite dense with inaccurate information (e.g. they own a T-shirt factory), and a lot of guesses. There is no need to listen to a random guy idea about kagi’s AI approach when they have that documented on their site.

Also, the “blase attitude to privacy” is because of a technicality of GDPR? (Not having the ability to download a file with your email address) I am a big fan of GDPR, and their privacy policy is the best I have seen (I read the pp of every product I use and I often choose products also based on it), so really I don’t care about the technical compliance to GDPR (I am not an auditor), but the substantial compliance.

All-in-all, the article raises some good points, but it is a very random opinion from a random person without any particular competencies in the matter. I would take it for what it is tbh

EDIT: To add a few more:

• They achieved profitability (BTW, 2 years of operation and being profitable with 30k users, they really don’t know what they are doing /s)
• Their price changed twice. It was raised once, and the change was reverted later on, with unlimited searches. For me that is a great sign, especially considering the transparency of telling exactly how much each search costs for them.

Source: see https://blog.kagi.com/what-is-next-for-kagi (published ~1 month after the linked post).

An article full of inaccuracies, but the most interesting bit is, all these conversations are possible because they clearly explain their views, which are publicly available on their website (for example, the philosophy behind the use of AI - which BTW is opt-in).

How is that an example of being opaque is beyond me.

FWIW, the default “programming” lens works quite well in Kagi, you can also create your own lens if you have a set of websites from which you routinely search info, and there are tons of bangs already (which can also be mapped to lenses BTW). In addition, you can downrank AI/SEO stuff when you find it (it is downranked by default in kagi), so that over time your results are quite clean.

So, not carbonara. Pasta with lemon is awesome, I also love pasta with tuna, both also work together, but it’s not a carbonara.

I will go out on a limb here and guess those were not ravioli and some form of pelmeni instead? There are types of them that are usually eaten with sour cream and jam. But the dough used is quite different from the ravioli one, and the filling is cheese (not meat or ricotta/spinach).

Was that the case?

It actually makes sense, because Italian history is far from a continuum. In fact, most “Italian cuisine” is actually less than 100 years old!

Most of Italian recipes are very simple. The focus usually is on quality on the ingredients and if they are good, a pizza with just mozzarella and tomatoes is already delicious. That said, even in Italy there are plenty of types of pizzas, but most of them don’t have 20 ingredients, I suppose the point is that you actually want to taste what you eat, which is not the case when you mix many different things. There is a very messy and rich pizza (capricciosa) with a lot of toppings though (more than one obviously, but this is the most common).

Personally I am a margherita person, simple and boring is perfect, as long as it tastes great.

P.s. Giuseppe :)

It’s not about being right, it’s about making something that tastes good. Besides that, there are also well established cultural traditions. But as long as people call their garbage pizzas “NY pizza”, or whatever and it’s well distinguished by “Italian pizza” (or Neapolitan, etc.), I don’t see the problem.

Completely different dough in terms of consistency and taste. Bread and pizza are quite different, so many ingredients that work on pizza don’t work on sandwiches and vice versa. Having said that, people can eat what they please.

For what is worth, that’s not how (most?) Italians think about pizza. It’s not a “container” in which you put a bunch of things, but each pizza type is basically a separate dish.

I personally don’t care what people put on their pizza, I simply avoid places that make “pizzas” in a non-italian fashion, like the american (supposedly NY style) ones where you get crust, 2 fingers of industrial cheese and a whole plant of oregano.

It’s very similar for pasta, which many people think as a bread replacement.

I can’t really make an exhaustive comparison. I think k3s was a little too opinionated for my taste, with lots of rancher logic in it (paths, ingress, etc.). K0s was a little more “bare”, and I had some trouble in the past with k3s with upgrading (encountered some error), while with k0s so far (about 2 years) I never had issues. k0s also has some ansible role that eases operations, I don’t know if now also k3s does. Either way, they are quite similar overall so if one is working for you, rest assured you are not missing out.

Yeah, but you don’t need anything besides the runtime with kubernetes. Podman is completely unnecessary since kubelet does the container orchestration based on Kubernetes control plane. Running podman is like running docker, unnecessary attack surface for an API that is not used by anybody (in Kubernetes).

I run k0s at home, FWIW, tried k3s too :)

Why would anybody use podman for k8s…containerd is the default for years.

Nobody talked about victims. I was just contesting your BS exaggeration. But I see you can only discuss in absolutes and you decided to simply ignore every single point I made and flip the table with all the cards.

You must be really unsure about your ideas if you can’t defend them at all.

YOU made it sound like reality is either you going around in complete peace and bliss without any danger whatsoever (man) or in complete terror with a deathly danger behind every corner (woman). Challenging this barbie view of the world is not aiming to flatten the differences (which I acknowledged since the beginning) between men and women.

So yeah, nice try but no. Maybe reflect on your position and admit you used an hyperbolic statement next time, I dunno, it might work better than strawmen and moving the goalpost.

Women fear for their safety around men in public, and rightfully so. Period. It’s so fucking bizarre that anyone would ever try to argue against this.

I am not. I am arguing against the fact that men don’t (need to) worry about their safety in public. It’s such a cartoonish way to think. You don’t worry, good for you!

The statistics you’re quoting (and likely making up, but I don’t care enough about this to look) aren’t really relevant, I’m talking about real women’s real life experience.

So one comment ago you were telling me to look at statistics, now it’s real life experience that matters.

BTW, just search and you will find data, for example https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/crime-and-justice/recorded-crime-victims/latest-release, https://www.statista.com/statistics/423245/us-violent-crime-victims-by-gender/ (which shows 2022 is essentially identical, but quite a gap in 2021), etc. Note that I am searching generic violent crimes. In terms of murders men are quite universally in higher number.

Again, talk to women. Or if you can’t do that, read what actual women have to say about this subject. Do you not value the opinions of women? Do you not believe them when they speak about their personal experiences?

This has nothing to do with my argument. I am not contesting women (need to) fear for their personal safety in public. If I were a woman there would be a host of additional things I would worry about. What I am contesting is the way you present this fact, as if the difference between men and women was a 0-100 difference, when it’s not.

I don’t really see the reason to make up bullshit exaggerations to drive a point that stands on its own without them. Women have to worry and do worry differently, both in terms of quality and quantity than men when they go in public. There are certain risks that in public are fairly irrelevant for men, which doesn’t mean “men have nothing to worry about”. There are also certain risks that are much smaller for women (e.g., getting into a fight in a bar because some dude’s ego was hurt and needs to assert being the alpha).

Why is it necessary for you to make a completely unrealistic assertion (which BTW disregards my opinion as man while talking about men, so “Do you not value the opinions of women? Do you not believe them when they speak about their personal experiences?” cit.) to support a very reasonable thesis? Do you think people can appreciate the safety issue for women only if they contrast it with a completely opposite (i.e., no issue at all) situation for what concerns men?

All the crimes I have mentioned are statistically way more likely than sexual assaults, a crime that notoriously happens mostly within one’s home. So what you just said seems to me completely in antithesis with the original message.

Also, I completely disagree with your assessment. I live in a perfectly safe city and country, but when I travel I sometimes also go in worse areas, and most importantly I don’t even know whether I am in a “bad neighborhood” or not, because I don’t know the place. Hence I worry for my personal safety, which is exactly what prompts for those basic measures that you listed (and more), such as not flashing wealth unnecessarily. You do this exactly because you are aware that man or not you can be victim of such crimes just as much. In fact, statistics show that men are more likely to be victims of violent crimes in general, so I am not really sure where your core thesis come from.

Also worrying is not being terrified, is understanding a risk exists and taking precautions. Either way, this idea that as a man you have nothing to worry about is completely idiotic.