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.

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

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.

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.

Crime novels about murders are a very popular type of book. Do you think that people read them because they’d enjoy watching murder in real life?

Also, the writing seriously is that good. I’d have completed the book if it was about watching paint dry.

Does it matter? A discussion is not about signalling that you support the correct side even though social media seems to think so.

Pyre is an interesting sports game IMO because it doesn’t try to look like any real sport.

Growing it in a lab is likely worse that growing it in an animal. Synthetic imitations are the only efficient replacement.

I calculated at one point that if you ride a bike instead of a car but replenish the calories with pure beef, it is better to ride the car. So diet matters.

Of course there is a limit. The question is how high it is. For instance, at high enough CO2 concentrations, the greenhouse effect doesn’t get much stronger anymore. Also, the more CO2, the faster it dissapears by eroding rocks. That happens on a geological timescale, though.

If we did something to lower temperature, I’d be very worried about the CO2 concentration’s other effect: feeling like suffocating all the time.