I'm curious because I go through this experience a little more often than I'd like to admit, and typically end up frustrated and without any results (admittedly without using Kagi, yet). Did you just search for a phrase from the video, or what did you do to find what you needed with Kagi?
I've not gone looking for videos specifically, but my experience there is that Kagi seems to focus on what you've explicitly searched for, where Google and others have increasingly leaned into interpreting your intent.
Google's approach works well enough when you're searching for a commodity and you don't care terribly much about the specific source. I get the impression Google, especially post-LLM, wants to divorce satisfying your question from the underlying sources.
I find Kagi is better at finding a specific thing, especially if you're willing to engage with it as a tool, ye olde search engine style. If my query doesn't find what I want, it's usually apparent why and I can reframe it.
Yes and no. Because of aggressive action from IP holders a lot of these sites went underground and deliberately aren't indexed in the US and EU but providers from Russia or Switzerland got shadowbanned.
Going by land area isn't a great metric, since the US has a great deal of unpopulated or sparsely populated space. Per capita might be better, but not by much. But if you go "per city," the US has around 19,000 incorporated areas. So 17k libraries to 19k incorporated areas (cities, towns, villages, designated census areas, etc.), might be better metric.
I posted the DOS version on CompuServe (!) probably 30 or 35 years ago. I don't think I ever posted the Word for Windows version. I switched to a MacBook a dozen years ago; I think I remapped some of its keys to emulate Emacs. (But in recent years I've used mostly Emacs itself and org-mode, because these days I'm mostly a law professor and use Word mainly in the occasional client contract-negotiation project.)
A small difference at small levels but one which obviously matters when it's shoved into countless foods without most people event realizing. It's not just in soda and candy; it's in bread, pasta, almost any processed food (crackers, ketchups and other sauces, canned fruit, applesauce, lunch meat, peanut butter, the list goes on) and many foods one might not considered processed.
It makes sense to try to eliminate it even though it's "only" a small difference. Might as well remove the difference at all and look out for things with no HFCS shoved in it for no reason.
>HFCS 42 is mainly used for processed foods and breakfast cereals, whereas HFCS 55 is used mostly for production of soft drinks.
In other words, the type of HFCS that's "shoved into countless foods" has less fructose than table sugar, not more. If fructose is the villain here, that actually constitutes an improvement over table sugar.
Plain pasta almost never contains any HFCS. Maybe you can find some that does but that's not what most people are buying in their local grocery store. (The sauce is often a different story.)
Fair - I went back and re-edited enough times my original message got jumbled, and I had been thinking of pasta dishes you could buy, which almost invariably have HFCS, but absolutely correct plain pasta pretty much never does.
The point is, it doesn't matter if your ketchup is made with sugar or HFCS. If it weren't HFCS, it would be sugar, because ketchup is supposed to be sweet, and they have the same nutritional effect.
Similarly, it's not suprising when pasta sauce has some sweetness added -- grandma also likely added a bit of sugar if she found tomatoes too acidic, which many do.
The only thing that matters is that it's sugar. HFCS isn't somehow worse. If you're trying to eliminate sugar overall then sure, of course avoid HFCS. But if you're fine with a certain moderate amount of sugar per day, then the relatively small amounts of HFCS in things like pasta sauce and peanut butter are fine. The same way the sugar or honey in teriyaki sauces is. They count towards your daily allotment of sugar. For people trying to eat relatively healthily, avoid the soda but there's no reason to worry about the HFCS in ketchup or normal amounts of tomato sauce, for goodness' sake. The only reason to avoid HFCS entirely is if you're truly cutting sugar out of your diet entirely. Otherwise they're just substitutes for practical nutritional purposes.
That's another fair point that specifically tomato-based products often have sugar, but also kind of missing the forest for the trees. For various reasons, we have a slew of foods that one might not expect to have added sugar (like lunch meat, ham notwithstanding, or applesauce which is already sweet without extra sugar, to pick from my short list above), that do because of reasons. In any case it does pay to still look, because if you're not careful you could pick one random tomato sauce that has double the amount of sugar compared to the jar right next to it on the shelf (Bertolli Tomato & Basil, 11g per serving; Newton's Own Marinara, 6g per serving).
These choices add up, which is the point I was trying to make originally (though I agree I did not do a good job of it); I understand I was being pedantic so I understand the nature of the responses to me. The point is that small differences, isolated, don't matter, but in aggregate they absolutely do. We make arguments like this all the time in software when trying to write correct, performative code -- the milliseconds add up, and so do the grams of sugar.
The anti-HFCS movement, despite having its targets aimed for wrong reasons, is still aiming at the right thing: being more mindful of what's in the things we put in our bodies.
I would actually argue the anti-HFCS movement is not aiming at the right thing.
Because they make people think Mexican Coke is fine because it's made with real sugar, or that putting honey all over your toast doesn't count. Like, I know people who think these things, but avoid HFCS like it's the plague.
Unless you're trying to avoid sugar to an extreme degree, the sweetness in tomato sauce is not worth concerning yourself about. The small differences, when added up, don't matter that much. The sugar in your bread and peanut butter is nothing compared to a Coke. Again -- if you're concerned about sugar, then don't drink soda and don't eat dessert. No candies, no sweet drinks, no sweet juices. That gets you 95% of the way. Worrying about HFCS in bread is missing the forest for the trees.
> The government recommends that free sugars – sugars added to food or drinks, and sugars found naturally in honey, syrups, and unsweetened fruit and vegetable juices, smoothies and purées – should not make up more than 5% of the energy (calories) you get from food and drink each day.
> This means:
> Adults should have no more than 30g of free sugars a day, (roughly equivalent to 7 sugar cubes).
Like I said, it adds up. And as I pointed out above, the added sugar varies wildly in the "same" things you buy off the shelf, so it does pay to pay attention.
I don't see the same argument for adding more beneficial things to your diet like protein or fiber so it's curious to say the negative things don't also have some cumulative effect.
You can easily find peanut butter without added sugar, and applesauce without added sugar, and many more of the garden variety things without added sugar. Sure, there is naturally occurring sugar, but that's the point -- why add more, and why add that to your diet?
For many writers and creative types I've read and talked to, the use of AI for pretty much any reason is equivalent to crossing the picket line.
When so many models are trained on illegally-obtained data (libgen, etc.) and provide profit without acknowledgement to the folks whose creative output made said profit possible in the first place, it feels really icky to put it lightly.
What's more, the creative process is about pulling something out from inside of you, examining your ideas and yourself, and maybe showing it to the world. Feedback from others, editors or readers or whatever, is a reciprocation of that. Or if you keep it to yourself, you've learned and grown anyway, and have honed your craft for the next time you try it.
What reward is there in computer mimicry? How does AI empower this process?
From a commercial aspect it all sucks. Creatives are devalued and the creative process is arrested. This isn't new, though. Ever since we started calling entertainment "content," you could see it coming. It's a struggle Hollywood's faced since the studio system, even before. We had the subversives in the Code era, the new wave people, the auteurs, and so on, all fighting that good fight against the business people who spoke only in dollars and cents. So it was, so it shall be.
I don't think there will be an AI takeover in creative writing, except for maybe a hiccup where slop content creators chase gold. Already a couple of romance writers accidentally published stories with prompts left in them and have instantly ruined their reputations forever. I think the people interested in reading what a machine wrote are the people interested in making the machine write. Everyone else wants something from a real human.
> From a commercial aspect it all sucks. Creatives are devalued and the creative process is arrested.
Don't worry, if we keep it up, we can do this to everyone, all humanity, and finish our centuries long work of making a world that's hard on humans and good for our superorganisms -- business, capital organizations, churches and states that we started on centuries ago. Our technical creations can help us accelerate and complete the process by which we have chosen to make our only possible significance and value in how much we can scramble to control of these, crushing every other human endeavor and the suffering we create and potential joys we torch in meanwhile nothing but the meaningless price of progress.
This is an alarmingly reductionist statement that I cannot believe is made in good faith. If it somehow is, it's based on an abundance of ignorance that only highlights the importance of education.
Are you genuinely arguing that LLM output is derivative, and human output is derivative, therefore they're equal? Why don't you pop that thesis into ChatGPT and see how it answers.
I didn't realise that by comparing derivative human output to derivative machine output that I was inherently arguing that they are equally derivative at this point in time.
It is true that human output has higher entropy, but that will not be the case forever.
BART crime is up over the past decade. People don't avoid BART because of that headline with the chainsaw man. They avoid it because of everyday crime and violence.
I'm sure it's similar for many other metro transport options in the USA. California in particular has a rough go for many reasons.
It doesn't even have to be something bad or happen to you. One "my buddy had his bike stolen off the light rail" and several people will be turned off of ever trying to use it.
The "crime" story has been so twisted by propaganda and lies-by-statistics that you'll have to forgive me for saying that I can't take your word for it and will need numbers. Truthiness certainly can drive people to make poor, (unfounded) fear-based decisions.
This is pretty much how I play GTA V. I have a Self Radio playlist for a specific vibe. Hop in a random car and cruise around the city, get distracted by some event, cause a little mayhem and escape if I'm in the mood, and keep cruising. Like the Truck Simulator games, it's a good way to go for a drive without actually needing to go for a drive (so less exhausting, wasteful, and dangerous).
When my oldest son was very young, he enjoyed watching me play GTA IV in a style that involved cruising around the city, observing all traffic laws (he got quite upset if I bumped another traffic participant or ran a red light), and hopping into random stores to try on various outfits.
