That app doesn’t work as it needs some play API which I guess is not implemented in microG. I am guessing not all of them are passed though.

My FP3 on /e/OS (based on lineage) has native recording. The phone passes safetynet check, i believe due to microG. However, some apps consider the bootloader unlocked so YMMV.

I am aware, and I am also aware that people are free to think what they want for themselves and I am nobody to judge them. You might think it’s ridiculous, but theirs is the only life affected by this, so they are well within their rights to have all the opinions they have on their life.

Not being aware of any disability is true, but their statement is relative to what they are aware of, not a scientific statement (since it’s a personal opinion), and as I said, you can also approximate to the blanket statement rather than mentioning 100 conditions.

I agree it might be insensitive to bring it up, but neither me nor the person you answered to brought it up, we merely answered to a comment that mentioned this expression.

I really disagree with your reasoning. I think that someone might simply consider any disability a reason not to live, and you are nobody to say that they missed the nuance of different disabilities, or that it’s ridiculous to think you’d rather die than being hard of hearing (which is what I think you implied). I disagree with the blanket statement, but I think your arguments are invalid both from the theoretical standpoint than from the practical one (when x becomes a list of 100 items you might as well use a blanket statement).

I understand that vision will deteriorate. My question was if using glasses can contribute to the deterioration. If glasses are neutral and don’t harm, then I don’t understand the parent comment.

The way I asked the question was that if using glasses all the time I could - for example - reduce even more certain movements etc. and ultimately cause harm to my vision.

Look, if the problem is the expression, I don’t care really for it. English is not my first language, I have no need to say this to anybody really, and I have no problem expressing my thought in another way.

All I care is the semantic and the underlying principle.

So yeah, I won’t stomp my foot to defend my right to express my thought with that sentence (to be honest, not a fan of policing language this way). I will simply defend my right to express the underlying opinion, in whichever way is acceptable.

I see and agree with both points. I definitely keep such choices to a very tight circle (like I gave instructions to my partner and family in what to do should I end up in certain situations - also called biological testament in Italian).

I also mentioned that indeed I would consider certain disabilities a deal breaker for me not to keep living, definitely not all disabilities. I would actually say that there are things that I want to do in life, and if I can’t - for whatever reason - that would be a reason not to live for me. Whether it’s a disability, a material condition, etc. It’s not really relevant - a disability can simply be a proxy not to be able to do something.

For example, I fought tooth and nail to ensure that my grandma would receive the proper care when she had dementia (which is a disabling condition I would say?). I also took care of her directly, and I would do that again a thousand times. However, should I get a similar condition, I let my family know that I would like to be euthanized, I don’t want to live like that.

Finally, this perspective is really really personal, it is bound to my experiences and my idea to the point that it can’t simply apply to anybody else. I would definitely never go to anybody and say “if I were in your shoes I would rather die”, but even if I thought that, this is a meaningless statement for another person. It’s of course extremely rude to say this, so once again, I am saying it for the sake of a theoretical discussion.

Overall for me this is a matter of free will and agency over your own body, it’s in anthithesis with the religious view that considers your body not yours and suffering a noble thing in itself.

Since you added an edit later on: no replacement makes that statement bigoted. If my own morale or ideas bring me to my own evaluation - that applies only to me - that life in a certain condition wouldn’t be worth living, there is nothing bigoted (at least, inherently).

I wouldn’t want to live so many lives that people live. Like an exploited worker in a poor country, a female in a very religious society etc. Ultimately this is a personal decision on your own life and body, nobody else should have a saying on what I want to do with my life at this fundamental level.

The problem (which becomes being ableist, or racist, or sexist) is when this perspectives becomes an ideology that affects society. You can easily support a society that - say - grants equal opportunities to men and women and at the same time think that you wouldn’t want to live as a woman.

Yeah, I completely disagree.

This for me is a position on my own right to determine my life, including ending it if certain conditions are not met. It is a position that affects and will affect a single person only, the one supporting it.

So in a sense it is something closer to assisted suicide and euthanasia in general. “Any disability would make my life not worth living” is different than saying “any disability makes life not worth living”. It’s a completely subjective issue, that can also change over time, and it’s obvious that there are people who completely disagree and have wonderful meaningful lives worth living while being disabled.

People with disabilities have gotten killed for this

Since this is not what I mean, nor advocate, this is in no way on me. The fact that other people with other perspectives act in a different way is not a reason me for to suppress my opinion. I mean no harm to anybody, I support welfare and public healthcare, I support also accessibility in all the different forms because I believe society should provide all tools and conditions possible to anybody to live their lives in the best possible way.

Also, I personally don’t have such a hard-line, I think for my own personal perspective only certain disabilities would be reasons to determine my life is not worth living anymore, but I can accept that for other people the bar can be in a different place.

Can you explain why? Why can’t I choose not to live in case I’d get disabled (in some cases, I would say)?

As long as you are not advocating that disabled people should be killed, and you respect the personal nature of this position, what is the problem?

What’s wrong with “I’d rather die than be disabled”? To me it looks a legitimate personal moral stance.

glasses WILL deteriorate your vision further. It’s 100% with glasses and contacts.

Do you have anything to share on this? I am asking because I remember I specifically asked my eye doctor this question, and he said no. (I asked something like if there is any downside in wearing glasses always vs only when needed e.g., reading, watching TV etc.).

I am also wearing the same glasses for almost 13 years now.

1 in russian is один, I think it’s quite different from one/uno/un (especially since the о is pronounced а). 2 and 3 are instead extremely similar (два три). Does it actually still come from the same root?

While not being competent in this subject, I found it very fascinatinf that ugro-finnic languages (which are not indoeuropean AFAIK) like Finnish or Estonian are so wildly different, so that 1 2 and 3 are üks, kaks, kolm (in Estonian), for example.

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.