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.

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.

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.

As someone from Rome, I feel you. Pickpocketing is somewhat an issue. In more than 20 years living in the city (before I moved) I never suffered from it, but it’s very common among tourists (especially in the underground and certain bus lines). It sucks and often police does nothing because by the time they catch the people (if they do), everything is gone anyway.

That said, beside pickpocketing Rome is very safe (or at least most of the places where a tourist would go, except maybe the surroundings of Termini station).

The “hunt” for the white man refers to her search for a white guy as a vice-president that can appeal to the “wasp” population. It’s a reference to western movies. The article is fully on her search for a vice-president and the “real” motivations for her choice.

Only in written language though, as the schwa can’t really be pronounced. I guess the way is to simply use both verbally (“tutti e tutte”), even though it’s not really necessary as “tutti” already includes - well - everyone (incl. non binary people).

That’s a great anecdote really. I think I tried exactly to play the angle of the human experience being very diverse. It obviously didn’t work out. The story you tell is definitely one that shows different perspective in a relationship between people of different ages. There are also “famous couples” where the age difference is large (I wanted to discuss one where a female director is marrier to a 23 years younger actor, and they met on set when he was 18 - just to have one more scenario to discuss). Most importantly, I bet many people would have different answer to the question “what is the maximum age do you think a 18yo person should date”, and probably this answer would change if talking about a man or a woman being 18yo. I think it’s an interesting conversation questioning why you think a certain answer is the right one.

Now, I understand that people who want progress want to normalize discussions about phenomena that years ago wouldn’t be acknowledged as much, like predatory behavior. However if the approach is purely dogmatic it is not a progress at all. Many people use a completely binary approach to define things that are much more complicated and nuanced. And as you say, this is then enforced via moderation, which further reinforces this dogmatic perspective for people who are forming an opinion.

Sorry for the long comment, but thanks a lot for the contribution. It was a nice reality check about the fact that it is an interesting topic to discuss with many nuances!

I do not necessarily think this is something that can be solved, and I do believe that mods are generally in good faith doing free labor. That said, I experienced similar cases just recently. Once, I got in an argument about the pope slur thing, and I was trying to explain that the slur was the least of the problems (being Italian, providing context), and not the reason to call out the church’s and pope homophobia (for which much stronger arguments exist). One other commenter was basically wishing death left and right, including to me, because they perceived this argument as a defense of the pope. Ultimately they reported my comment that quoted the slurs to explain the difference between various words and I got banned for “missing the point/defending a homophobe”. Apparently, wishing death to people was an acceptable behavior, questioning the severity of a word in a language I understand was not.

Just yesterday, I was discussing the post about some republican politician being in a relationship with a much younger person. I was in good faith entertaining a conversation about relationships with big age differences, but apparently the only acceptable opinion is that in those cases the older person must be a predator - no exceptions and no other possibilities allowed. For me it is almost a philosophical debate (especially because I was questioning my own morals), as it’s obvious that the age we would consider “too old” is essentially arbitrary, but no, got first moderated and then banned for “defending predators”.

Basically what I noticed here is that a lot of moderation goes into moderating opinions, and not behaviors. I understand that a lot of it is done with good motives, but it feels frustrating that it’s impossible to even discuss certain topics among adults. There are a lot topics for which only rigid opinions are allowed and any discussion that questions any part of that is forbidden. Not really an environment for productive debates, which is unfortunate.

I ended up blocking both communities where the above cases happened, so I guess ultimately the risk that you are mentioning is real. It did take away a lot of my desire to participate on Lemmy at some point.

Yeah, I can see your point and I would say I generally agree.

Stand up comedy though I think is quite a gray area. Ultimately cannot be seen as pure entertainment as that’s exactly what it distanced from when it was born. Laughing ultimately is just the mean but not the goal of this particular form of comedy.

But I agree about not being entitled to a crowd that finds you funny and throwing a fit about that.

I would say that the audience can be “wrong”, where I mostly mean “inappropriate for the specific comedian” at least.

One example that comes to mind is this https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=M4ckxcHx1q4 (Which unfortunately is in Italian). This monologue is an incredible piece on feminism, and the audience was extremely silent and unresponsive, probably because they were a “TV crowd” with a stand-up comedian (the best Italy has ever had IMHO) who was totally out of their league. In this case, the comedian ended up “rebuking” the audience and I think he was right at that.

You need to learn what abstraction is, my friend. I am not speculating. Quite the opposite. I am saying that you like to think the world works according to precise laws that you can use to predict the future. This is why you are arguing in multiple comments that “they would have…”, as if people are NPCs with 3 different behaviors and the outcomes are predetermined so it’s just a matter of choosing.

The reality is simple: you, me, nobody can know for sure what " would have happened" if history happened differently. This is a methodological issue, not a discussion on the merits of your speculation.

I don’t know if nuclear bombs caused less deaths than the millions of other potential courses of actions, and neither do you, neither does anybody else. I don’t know if Israel wiping off Gaza from the map potentially saved thousands of lives in future conflicts. You see the problem?

Now, before assuming that everyone else is an idiot and that you are the only smart one in the room, you might want to try a little harder to understand the point of your interlocutor, considering we are also discussing in what (I assume) is your native language but not mine. If you didn’t understand so far that my critique is in the method, not in the merits, of your claim, then I agree, there is nothing to talk about.

I just made an example of speculating on future occurrences to justify concrete actions that instead happened. In fact, the entire comment was about the general idea of considering history deterministic, not about the specific atomic bomb event…

And where is the count of deaths in the different timeline?

Look, my point is simple: human history is not deterministic and we simply can’t know what happens tomorrow like if we were predicting the laws of phisics. Maybe there were other 100 different course of actions leading to as many outcomes.

You can analyze what happened, but it’s foolish to say “this was better because the alternative would have led to”. You can only analyze and discuss what happened, otherwise anything can be justified with “it wouldn’t have been worse”.

“this genocide was good, because without it the oppressed population would have led to civil war and many more deaths”.

It does, but it’s an online forum, not an essential service, and easy to replace. On the other hand, being there with your name or nickname exposes you to harassment from those pissed at you for your decision.

I would say it’s an acceptable evil given the circumstances.

As a side note: asking why after a mod action is almost universally pointless. Moderating is free work and a level of subjectivity is implied. I think not having the ability to argue is infuriating but understandable.

History is about what happened. “Otherwise it would” is speculation.

What does this have to do with showing mod log? Genuinely confused

I see absolutely no reason why you couldn’t be a Dev and an admin, in a decentralized platform. If this was a single-server platform, maybe. But here, how does the moderation policy of lemmy.ml affects anything but posts over there?

Also, beehaw has a very politicized banning policy, would you say that is unacceptable? I see it as perfectly fine and I would be fine as well if they were to contribute to Lemmy code (unless they try to build their policies into the code and therefore enforce them everywhere - which is something we know the Lemmy devs are not doing).