Not being sure was part of my point. We can’t be sure. But all their incentives are aligned in the right way. That’s the best we can hope for. And better than any alternative right now.

You can’t have? Or you can’t be sure?
Because you certainly can have. Just because you pay, doesn’t mean they will log your searches. In fact Kagi claim they don’t. And since their only income comes from paying users. If anyone ever found out they’re lying about that, they’d quickly loose a big chink of subscribers and income. As well as get sued for fraud. So it’s rather unlikely they do.

Unlike every other search provider, Kagi is the only one with a business model that ensures it’s users are the customer, not the product. When actually using it every day, that’s quite obvious in the results. Even when you search for a company directly, it’s Wikipedia entry is usually the first result. The the company site is the second.

Yes that’s correct.

All has posts from all the communities the members on that instance subscribe to.

Those are very big questions. This Wikipedia Page is a good place to start.

The simple answer is, everything humanity does happens in cycles.
But you can think of it as roller-coaster passing through an infinite series of loops. We keep going forward in the long run. But but the repeating loops take us up and down, even upside down and backwards along the way. In every case, coming down each loop gives us the momentum to reach the next one.

It is

It works in cycles.

The last Guilded Age (think Roaring 20s) ended with the great depression. Which then triggered the creation of all the great economic policies the boomers enjoyed as children, which they’ve been dismantling since the 70s.

Once things get bad enough, (very nearly there now) the cycle will repeat.

I’m not sure you know what post scarcity means.

Imagine a world where nobody needs to work, but everyone can still have any material desire filled at any time.

Think Star Trek. Unlimited energy resources, combined with replicators which use that endless energy to create unlimited stuff without any labor required.

It really is the most efficient way to manage and trade scarce resources. Going back to a barter system wouldn’t be possible with the size and scope of a global economy.

I’m generally not a sit com person.
But that sounds cute. I’d give it a chance.

Sure they ask for a rematch.
Unless they’re afraid they’ll get humiliated again.

The most profitable league in all of sports…
Is being killed?

I don’t think that means what they think it means.

I’m not trying to pick on Harris specifically here. It’s just a perfect example of politicians being asked direct yes or no questions, and them giving paragraph long responses that don’t actually answer the question.

Do you believe that climate change is largely driven by human activity, including the burning of fossil fuels? If not, is there a different cause you would cite?

Didn’t say yes.

Do you believe climate change is making disasters such as hurricanes, wildfires and heat waves more intense?

Almost said yes.

Should climate change be addressed through government action or market forces?

Practically a yes. I award a half credit.

Do you support clean-energy tax credits such as those for electric vehicles?

Again half credit. Not an actual yes.

For a narrow definition of law that may be the case.
But it could also be thought of as a set of laws, which specifically govern law-makers.

In this case it’s making certain pre-existing statutes illegal, effectively nullifying them.
Why this judge thinks those statues need to be specifically mentioned, I don’t understand. As a judge you’d think that would be their job.

That is what we have now. Mostly.
The current vehicle taxes are never close to covering the costs of road maintenance.

Roads aren’t built to last forever. They all need maintenance. Semis cause more wear and damage on all roads, requiring more repairs. So yes, if that cost isn’t already baked into the cost of trucking everything, it only makes sense to start doing so.

The other option, is to give up on the idea of vehicles paying for roads. We could just use general tax money from everyone, as everyone benefits from quality roads. That would also be logically consistent.

No. No exclusions.
It doesn’t matter if they serve a purpose; All the damage they still do still happens, and needs to be accounted for. Rolling it into the cost of the purpose is fair.

Some will even if they do understand the math.

Becides that’s an argument against all laws.
The people who a law is bad for, will always hate and fight it.

Sounds reasonable.
That’ll work to make them less popular.

When I lived in the rural northeast, driving was fun. The bendy roads with low traffic were a blast to drive.
Now that I live in a southwest city, not so much. It’s merely the least inconvenient way to get anywhere.

You’re conflating two separate things.
It’s not 1:75, of all living people, for that year.
It’s 1:75 of people who die in the US, are killed by cars.
In any given year, if 40K die from cars, 3M people will have died some other way, that year.