https://blog.kagi.com/kagi-privacy-pass

https://github.com/kagisearch/privacypass-extension

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43040521

Yes and yes, since you you apparently aren't capable of reading for yourself

-edit- I decided I didn't like the tenor of the comments I made. This tone serves nothing but to degrade the quality of online discourse so I will say this:

I don't personally have the technical chops to verify the claims that Kagi is making. And no one should blindly trust the statements of faceless companies. For me personally, the claims, discussion in the linked hacker news post, and the direction of Kagi's economic incentives are enough to satisfy me personally. Nothing says that someone else must be satisfied by that level of evidence, which is definitely not proof positive. However, I also very strongly believe that the level of paranoia that it takes to decide that all of that is not enough would also 100% disbar one from using google, even without an account. I do not think that one can honestly say that, with the evidence we have on hand, that Kagi is less privacy protecting that google. They may not be privacy protecting enough, whatever standard that is for someone, but they are absolutely doing more than google.

https://help.kagi.com/kagi/privacy/privacy-pass.html

As I understand it, so far the only actual change is an announced increase in prices. Obviously, from the consumer perspective, cheaper is better, but this is a product where I think that a subscription plan makes sense (and the free tier, for now, still exists), and so I'm not going to get mad about price changes. Competitors exist and one doesn't think the new price is worth it, then switch to one of them (using the very-much-still-available vault export).

I don't think the warning is crazy or anything, but in my personal opinion it's a little stronger/earlier than is warranted and the current appropriate response is careful watching.

AI won't be "integrated" until something similar happens, and new businesses etc. are formed that take advantage of it in a way that can't simply be reversed to the old, pre-AI paradigm. I don't know what that will look like, but someone is going to figure it out and make successful companies with entirely new paradigms that are only made possible by AI.

At some point, every single factory was designed for electric motors, and going back became unthinkable.

-edit- also, the idea that a 5 year old tech that is still rapidly changing and developing deserves quotation marks around "new technology" is hilarious to me.

In the first few years after electric motors became a thing, one could have said the same thing. We would have just gone back to steam. If you tried to "do without them" now, society would collapse.

So the question is not if we can do without them now, it's if we can do without them in 5 to 10 years (or however long it takes for them to be fully integrated)

This is a much bigger problem that requires a bigger solution. I'm pretty intrigued by the mention at the end that several european manufacturers are collaborating on an opensource automotive software platform, although their track record on software isn't that encouraging.

[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20250306183754/https://projects....

I'm not trying to make much of a point other than that: anecdotes aren't going to get you very far.

My problems with linux have nothing to do with the quality of the OS itself (which I personally haven't had many issues with), but rather with software support from companies that don't want to put the engineering effort into making their linux version as good as the windows version. And I can't really blame them, but some software I just need.

If you can think of something that isn't solved by one of those two mechanisms, I'd be interested in hearing them enumerated.

I'm not trying to suggest they _need_ to implement it. Like I said, closing it is reasonable. Completely aside from any other considerations, one could just decide that they don't feel like dealing with it. But there are other options.

I haven't seen good stats on Tesla (they are less transparent than Waymo), but it would shock me if they weren't also at least slightly safer than the average human driver. Human drivers are really bad at driving.

But even if Tesla isn't safer, taken as a whole, the self driving industry as it currently exists still probably is, purely because it's mostly Waymo, and Waymo is dramatically safer.

This doesn't really argue against your point, because the standards are what they are, and like I said, I have no idea how one would go about changing them if one even decided they wanted to. And given what they are, it has taken, as you point out, enormous amounts of effort to reach those standards in a practical way.

That all being said, while I agree that SDV's are in many respects easier than other robotics tasks, they are also somewhat uniquely dangerous. Other categories of task, while potentially more complicated, won't have to worry nearly so much about safety, and so may be operating under a different constraint regime. I think this means that we may see adoption happen at a much more accelerated rate than we have seen in the automotive space.

I don't think this is true for most people. Unless you are a relatively prolific (probably top 1% or even 0.1% or less), you likely do not have enough long form writing online to create a unique style fingerprint. All of your accounts will be consistent with having been written by the same person, but absent other information, will not be enough on their own to say that they were written by one and only one person.

And even for people who do have enough writing online to create a truly unique fingerprint, that fingerprint will not be universally applicable to all their accounts (at least not solely by writing style*). Even when you have a truly unique profile for someones writing style, a given writing sample needs to be greater than some minimum length in order to consistently match it.

Linking literally all of your online accounts will probably use writing style as a factor, but I very much doubt it will ever be enough on it's own.

[0]https://www.pcengines.ch/index.htm

This presumes there is such a thing as "every" vulnerability. It is possible that ever more sophisticated, complicated, and abstract attacks become possible/discoverable as one applies more intelligence to the problem.

IF it is indeed possible to make a piece of software completely secure, then yes, more intelligent systems make the situation better, because it will always be possible to audit a system before it is ever released and make it completely safe.

That is a very big if and, as far as I am aware, remains to be seen if it's the case

-edit- They mention this possibility themselves further down, so the authors know this is a completely speculative point/article. They don't even try to make an argument about why one possibility might be more likely than the other. This article is useless.