dlrht

At what age are you supposed to know what you want for the rest of your life? You will never have an answer to that in any capacity, and not just in marriage. You evolve as a person, you'll never have a fixed desire for your whole life. And that's the great thing about marriage and relationships, they also evolve. And it's about who you want to try doing that with

This had me burst out in laughter real hard omg

Oh you know, there's that one, and that one, and that other one

Most of the internet uses AWS. Facebook uses AWS. Apple uses AWS. Should they not be a FAANGs then? What are you even getting at? Let's not act like Netflix has no engineers and that it's actually all completely Amazon's engineering work. Like if you're seriously insinuating Netflix doesn't have any technical achievements idk what to say

They don't develop any particularly incredible tech aside from the one their whole product is based around and enabled them to be an industry leader 🙈

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

I don't act like cattle, so I'm gonna continue complaining 😃

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

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

The contrast though is that you don't "earn" heaven either. Nothing makes a Christian and a non Christian so inherently different from each other that one fundamentally deserves heaven and the other hell. It's saved by faith, not by works

We can agree to disagree then. You didn't really explain anything either.

We're an inherently selfish species from a biological perspective, people aren't just fundamentally altruistic. If evolution shaped our morals to encourage us to be nice to each other to benefit the whole species, why is it still such a struggle for people to be selfless?

I find it very hard for you to convince me that as a species we are neutral when the very people we put into power and govern over us are narcissists and power hungry people who have little care about every individuals lives that they govern over and are obsessed with self gain.

On an individual level, being altruistic/good natured/selfless is something that has to be fostered and you have to be intentional about. Growing up, we're taught lessons, in school and in media, etc., on how to be good/how to treat others. We're taught to do good things and don't do bad things. Why? Because our nature is to do bad things

If you have to be intentional about being good and not being bad, then that means your default state is being bad. It's easy to be selfish and only do things that you want and only care about yourself, because that's our nature as a species.

I don't agree that we just "are" and that we just "exist", it just sounds like someone that doesn't want to face the truth that mankind is not a perfect species. Vague statements like "we can only be as evil as we are good" doesn't actually mean anything. You just stated a bunch of facts like "death gives life meaning" and "shadow defines light". Sure. I agree. So what? Nothing that you said really clarified why humans aren't inherently bad in your eyes. You just said a bunch of generic statements that not even Christians disagree with as if I'm supposed to understand why your position makes sense now

I typically nod politely when Christians talk to me, it's just easier.

So when you say "whatever you say" it's just easier, but when I say it in reply to a one word comment that's just disrespectful it's me trying to convert someone to Christianity... ok. Do you not see your hypocrisy? You are the one who is accusing me of something and when I justify myself and disagree you're just like "I'm wasting my time". I did not come into your conversation to tell you about Christianity, you came into mine to tell me I'm trying to convert someone when i wasn't at all. I was literally just equally replying snarkily

I understand non Christian povs. I'm just saying, Christian discussion or not, "death-cultsplainin'" was never appropriate and is an unwarranted response. That's all there is to it. There's nothing more to explain there. I don't come into a soccer team discussion and say "cultist" to a person who is a fan of one team. Christian or not it's disrespectful and non contributive. You're just trying to justify rude behaviour because you're personally tired of theological discussions.

Do you agree that the original "death-cultsplainin'" comment is unwarranted or do you think their comment was necessary and justified? Like be objective about it. If you think it's the latter, then we can just agree to disagree on how we engage in online discourse. In any context, I prefer not to call people cultists without explanation and think that's inappropriate, and you can prefer to think that's fine, sure. But such comments objectively lead to lower quality conversations and negative vitriol so I choose to say it's not appropriate and adds nothing to these threads aside from raising negative emotions. You don't have to be Christian to understand my sentiment. I understand yours fine. I'm just telling you why its not appropriate.