dlrht

joined 11 months ago
[–] dlrht@lemm.ee 2 points 4 months ago

Seriously can someone fix this

[–] dlrht@lemm.ee 2 points 6 months ago

IG comments are absolutely hilarious

[–] dlrht@lemm.ee 6 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

No, it's pretty clear that this is a result of modern "AI"... key word filtering wouldn't push applicants mentioning basketball/baseball up and softball down, unless HR is explicitly being sexist and classiest/racist like that.

I mean, the problem has existed for sure before ML & AI was being used, but this is pretty clearly the result of an improperly advised/trained dataset which is very different from key word filtering. I don't think HR a decade ago was giving/deducting extra points on applicants for resumes for mentioning sports/hobbies irrelevant to the job

[–] dlrht@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

[–] dlrht@lemm.ee 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

I really love this write up, extremely reasonable and makes sense. In the end, it's no bother to me if I don't buy it

[–] dlrht@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago

This had me burst out in laughter real hard omg

[–] dlrht@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago (5 children)

While I agree that this does avoid enshitification, it's always possible for a privately owned company to IPO. That's why all of us are even here to begin with

[–] dlrht@lemm.ee 4 points 11 months ago (7 children)

Makes sense, but yea it didn't really answer the overall question of "if it hits peak market penetration how will it avoid going the Google route" since google also started with the same premise. I suppose the answer is hope it doesn't become a monopoly

[–] dlrht@lemm.ee 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (9 children)

Just curious, in the hypothetical situation that 100% of users on the web used Kagi how is it any different? They'll demand more growth at that point but how would they achieve it? I don't see how paying for the service avoids the issue of the product becoming worse as a result of peak market penetration and needing new methods of growth

[–] dlrht@lemm.ee -1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

I totally get what you're saying, but that's not at all what religion is. If someone is listening to voices in their head, they're not religious. They're just crazy. I know many religious people who do not "listen to voices in their head" and it's my belief that you've had terrible encounters and experiences with people claiming to be religious. But to generalize is not a good thing. I've met very sane religious people that do not do the things you say, I think it's unfair of you to make such a sweeping claim that anyone who claims to be religious is immediately a crazy person to you. That idea itself sounds crazy to me

[–] dlrht@lemm.ee 9 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

This doesn't make any sense, who distributes/gives out rights tokens? And if they lose publishing rights, why would the new owner of the publishing rights care about the rights tokens they didn't sell?

Blockchain doesn't fix anything new here, there's no point in decentralizing the rights ownership, verifying ourselves as owners of the right to watch the media was never the issue here.

Getting companies to be willing to give out non revokable rights tokens is the issue, and no company wants to do that because it's not profitable for them. It's not a technological issue that blockchain is going to solve

view more: next ›