Has Google Search gotten so much worse in the last couple of weeks?
gusgalarnyk @ gusgalarnyk @lemmy.world Posts 0Comments 167Joined 2 yr. ago
I recommend Kagi, I've been using it for about six months now and results - especially small web results like blogs - are so much better. I also have a pretty good time image searching compared to when I was on Google.
Yes it's paid, but that to me is the price of resisting enshittification. Find a company that isn't a publicly traded for-profit world-burner and pay them for their service. Is the idea of paying for email and search an alien concept to me? Yes. But I'm either paying Google whatever €120 a year in eyeballs on ads and an increasingly worse experience, or I'm paying €80 a year and getting a markedly better experience.
Now it's up to Kagi and Proton to not turn into shitty companies while other competitors catch up and we have a thriving ecosystem again.
Kagi seems to surface great independent content and I've been loving it.
He's saying what you're attributing to "a specific lack of willpower" now has scientific backing that disagrees. Your take is old school and misinformed if the current science is correct. I personally haven't done research on the subject or read many studies but Adam Ragusea, a YouTube food science journalist covers this concept in one of his vids and several podcasts surrounding food science and (in my case) the drugs coming down the pipeline to regulate body weight touch on the research as well.
I think this is an immature understanding of how free markets work, how they slowly destroy themselves, and the problems at hand. Housing, like healthcare, isn't a market where choice is always possible, rational, or meaningful. And the "government" who imposes density restrictions are in place because of the people who vote in that government - a large portion of those restrictions are not the product of the past and an immovable system but because the owning class actively want them to remain in place. The incentive of the current system is to minimize housing access to maximize investment profit.
No one, or very few people, should profit from housing as an investment. Landlords produce nearly no benefit once a person is in the house and I would argue every other (or most other) benefit they produce only exist because the system caters to housing as an investment vehicle.
Anyone defending landlords is defending their own self-interest at the cost of the greater good, at the cost of their neighbors, and the generations to come. It's a parasitic job meant to transfer wealth from the poor to the wealthy.
It's fuckin crazy that we live in a society where someone is forced to pay into a richer person's networth instead of their own and we think it's okay.
Landlords should be illegal, housing is a right and an affordable one if we outlaw or heavily regulate landlords.
If housing is an investment ("a nest egg") then the people and policies that support it as an investment will stand directly opposed to people and policies that want housing to be affordable and a right.
Housing cannot be an investment vehicle akin to stocks in a society that meaningfully values housing for everyone as an objective to strive for.
Yes, of course. I wish you and everyone stuck there luck.
I am paying taxes and am able to vote, but because I make less than the required amount my taxes are essentially zero to the US because we have joint tax agreements between the two countries.
I don't know if I'll renounce after earning German citizenship or not but the exit tax is something I have to consider.
Ya, that's rough. That feels like a very immature take. The two parties are not the same, voting does matter, and I'd even argue that there are people so awful that assassination does make sense but I'm happy Trump survived because I think the Republican party would have been stronger without him.
I left the US, I'm between a millennial and gen z, and I left explicitly because I was worried about the future of the US and because moving abroad is akin to time traveling 20 years into the future. I have healthcare now, I live in a walkable city with great public transit, the crime rates are lower (although most places in the US aren't super violent, the probability of getting murdered goes way down when you leave), I have 6 weeks vacation, essentially unlimited sick time, and I'm not allowed to work overtime.
Both parties are not the same but if Democrats won in a landslide in every single election both state and federal in every chamber and every seat, how many years would it take to achieve all of those same things. I have no doubt these policies would happen with the right people in office, with radical change to the party they could even happen quickly and I believe it's what half the people want. But the two other outcomes are 50/50 with the parties and little gets done in a timely manner and worse the corrupt judges continue to error the system, or the Republicans win one big election just one more time and project 2025 starts getting a percent complete tracker and we slide back into the dark ages.
So I left. I believe if things go bad in the US historians will look at Trump's first victory as a period of brain drain from the country. But that's my two cents to go with this article.
That's my point, higher taxes does not mean less growth - you have a flawed understanding of taxes and economic growth. The government could take your tax money and convert the overwhelming majority of it towards meaningful services that a private company would have no incentive to be efficient about. That's what free market capitalism does, it finds services and then chokes out competition until the system is inefficient at using resources.
You can look at healthcare as a great example. The US spends more money on healthcare than most other countries and yet achieves worse results than the overwhelming majority of other countries. This is explicitly because healthcare is privatized in the US and prioritizes economic growth over providing a service. Other governments prioritize providing good healthcare and when government run provide better service and a cheaper price point. So if you live in the US you have worse living conditions because your government doesn't tax you more.
This same concept applies to transportation, Internet service (and often other utilities), elder care, housing, food. The government's "structural nature" doesn't mean much, every company is structured and just as inefficient. The difference is companies have an express intent to make more money, not provide better products or services unless that guarantees more money. What we see in an unregulated economy, which would require taxes to prevent, is companies find it easier to monopolize their market than provide better products/services. Governments on the other hand have the express intent to govern by the will of the people with power. In a good system this is the vast majority of constituents and not just the top 1% of wealth owners.
Your experiences with working for government or company or small town are not invalid but you have to understand that your experience is miniscule compared to the number of experiences out there. This is called anecdotal evidence. You can have all the anecdotal evidence and experience you'd like, but it's meaningless when compared with the whole world's experience which can only be measured using real world data - scientific conclusions or at least ones relying on some methodology. Because most governments implore 10s of thousands of people over hundreds of departments and locations, you simply couldn't experience a meaningful amount. So you have to build your opinions not based on your limited experiences but based on data.
Cable monster I think you're debating in good faith and for that I thank you. But you've got a lot of deprogramming to do - your opinions seem very implanted instead of individually formed. I
once believed less taxes and less government spending was an inherently good thing because I was told those things. With a bit of independent research, growing up and leaving the house that watched daily conservative programming, I learned that trickle down economics don't make any sense and that reducing taxes and government spending isn't simply good or bad - it's dependent on what services we feel we no longer need provided by the government.
So your statement of less taxes being better on every level is false from my understanding of the world. And just like you, I'll provide no sources, because I'm matching your effort here. The reason you're getting down votes and the reason I can confidently say you're simply wrong in some of these elements, is because these ideas are easily disproven with a bit of thinking, a bit of research in the real world, and it can upset people when someone holds such wrong opinions attempts to share them on the Internet without first supporting their statements.
Idk if this helps but I'll continue to respond as long as you continue to come off as not a bot or someone looking to simply stir the pot.
Well he and congress at the time permanently cut taxes for the rich and raised them for the middle class and poor so does that speed up or slow down the economy and does it fuel or resist inflation?
Cause it's pretty fuckin clear to me that taxing the rich less and the poor more isn't a good strategy for a healthy society.
I'm swapping to Linux finally because of it. Few things are black and white but these things do have effects and some additional percentage of users are shifting over because of it.
Is there a guide or any educational material on this? I'm about to swap to Linux (some fedora distro focused on gaming) and I'm interested in potentially one day swapping to arch after I've gotten my toes wet. Doing a bit of extra work and planning ahead to make that easier sounds nice.
The whole of Spain. I grew up with a lot of people who loved Europe but had never been to it or really anywhere else. Spain for some reason got a lot of love and attention in my social circles but I didn't engage with it meaningfully so I didn't understand it. I started my international travels in "the east" and had a wonderful time. By the time I visited Spain I expected a normal travel experience but definitely not the elevated grandeur my highschool years would have had me believe. I had average expectations.
Then I got there and every meal was bomb. Madrid, Valencia, Barcelona - I couldn't go wrong I loved the local food. Worse, I loved at least Madrid and Barcelona's ability to recreate other cuisines too. Some of the best sushi I've ever had was in Madrid and I make a point of getting quality sushi where ever I go (including practically gorging myself into a food coma in Japan).
Then I went to an art museum and it moved me, found some artisanal stores, got fresh orange juice at multiple grocers, saw a movie in a decent theater, you know the normal like "show me what it's like to live uniquely here" stuff. Ya, Madrid stole my heart for what it was and Spain as a whole surprised me.
Ya, I live right next to where this happened. It's an immigrant heavy area. These guys planned, and a similar group the following day, to protest right next to the people they hate and want evicted from the country.
I agree, no one should be stabbed for their beliefs and free speech (to a degree) is important. But if someone came to my neighborhood and spent the whole day shouting out of a loud speaker that I didn't belong, my family didn't belong, my neighbors and friends didn't belong, despite some of them living here for multiple generations - I'd be upset, I'd feel threatened.
Now couple that with doing it in a poorer district against a specifically marginalized group who has been historically treated poorly for decades with talking points that are clearly racist and easily disproven - idk. No one should get stabbed but even if I believed those awful things I wouldn't do what they did unless I was looking for trouble.
Idk, my roommate and I have been talking about it all weekend. Yes we believe you should be allowed to punch Nazi's, no we don't think we should be allowed to stab anyone, yes 20% of the German population roughly hold dehumanizing beliefs that are dangerous and we should be educating them, no the government isn't doing enough to better everyone's situation and therefore racism and fascism are growing at an alarming rate.
I'm stoked, the ARPG genre feels stale. Hopefully they keep up what seems to be engaging combat. No rest for the wicked is still in early access and D4/LE/POE1 have very unrewarding combat IMHO.
This can't come soon enough.
I'm currently deciding between nobara and vanilla arch, coming from windows (but am a software engineer). I like arch because, as I understand it, its lighter and more customisable. I also like that it's not corporate driven which potentially has conflict of interests (which I'm to understand red hat might). My biggest worry though is how much time I may spend maintaining an arch desktop and the possibility of hitting fail states too frequently. Obviously I can overcome some of that with good a good backup system, but I'd like to spend less nights working on my desktop and more time working on projects my desktop should enable. So I've been recommended Nobara as still cutting edge but more stable.
If anyone has some strong recommendations or thoughts I'd appreciate it. I think sticking as close to main is important and if fedora really does introduce issues I can always jump ship to arch or Debian after I've gotten my feet wet - but I'd like to not for as long as possible.
I played it on launch with friends. It was an arpg with better combat than most and pretty great graphics. Those are ALL of the positive things I have to say about it. It was so buggy it was hard to play without crashing. We lost progression multiple times. The servers were atrocious, the first 6 hours of playtime were trying to log in and not crashing. We ended up refunding it obviously.
Unfortunately the ARPG genre is super stale right now and we were looking to support any project we could. No rest for the wicked is the best thing to come out in ages and it's still got a ways to go in EA before I give it a proper play through.
I've read it, I read the discussion around it, idk man. One guy's thoughts on a company and it's founder isn't enough to move me off of something without better proof, better alternatives, and worse crimes than maybe having a bad long term vision.
Hopefully every company outgrows it's founder and becomes a system. We'll have to see, right now I'm satisfied and that gets me off Google and signals to others I'm willing to pay.