Pretending to out position, a pigeon playing at being a person, may be a preposterously puerile peacock, like I’ve never perceived.

You thought this was chess?
With your first reply you played a game of pointless pedantic posturing in the pursuit of pretend points. I just had fun playing along during moments of down time between patients.

We never argued tankie anything.
From Modikins first response it was all pedantic drivel. Nothing of substance. They started by attacking my bad analogies, without actually reading them. I just played the game they started, and took it to its logical conclusion.

Try nothing. I actually did it! 👨‍🎓

Excellent work!
Line is however subjective. On my device that’s actually 5 lines, because 2 of them wrap. And you didn’t count the blank line between your lines 2 and 3. That would make 4 if you had.

But that’s just coincidence and post hock nitpicking. Really I assumed you were referring to both of my primary comments together, since you also referenced the second. And calling the short paragraphs lines. Count them that way, there were also 4.

That is a good point. I can see how somone wouldn’t want to support the instance with views they don’t like… However.
Dogfooding ones own software is an important part of the development process. So it makes sense they would use it for that.

You see how I didn’t even address your point, and instead brought up a different and only tangentially related argument? Makes me seem like a dick doesn’t it.

That part?
That’s sarcasm. See how I called myself a dick for doing that?

It was only 4 lines. And yet you misread, misunderstood, or just plain missed, multiple things on each and every one of them.
Maybe that’s my fault for writing poorly. But since you didn’t even count them all, I’m doubtful its all my fault.

Ok. I understand a little better now. You may have skimmed what I wrote quickly, and made a bunch of assumptions and guesses about what I meant.

“Don’t set my bones, Dr. Steve donated to X” … claimed in a life threatening situation

I’m an Xray tech, not a doctor.
Never mentioned setting bones just taking xray images.
I also didn’t mention or imply any life threatening situations. That’s purely your imagination.

The roofers don’t matter in the OP’s decision regarding donations to the tankie.

My roofer example didn’t mention tankies at all.
I implied I would pay the roofer (singular) even though they were a (t)Rump supporter, and I don’t support their politics.

You said you wouldn’t engage positively with someone you disagree with like the OP

Never said anything of the sort. That’s your imagination again.

I’m sorry I genuinely don’t understand.
First you tear down my bad analogies. Ignores the point, but fine.
Then you go and make the same, or similar point I was making? I’m not sure. And think by some twist of logic maybe, think I wouldn’t engage positively with someone I have disagreements with?

I read your comment three times and I still don’t understand what you’re trying to get across.

That’s not surprising.
I understand.

Using free software isn’t piracy to begin with. This post is actually in the wrong community.

You see how I didn’t even address your point, and instead brought up a different and only tangentially related argument? Makes me seem like a dick doesn’t it.

Would I not pay my roofer if they were a Rump supporter?
They did a good job on my roof. What do their political opinions matter?

If I was XRaying your broken arm, would you refuse, because I support a tankie for writing apolitical software I like to use?

That assumes you were entitled to something that nobody owed you.

If the money was never yours, can you say it was stolen from you?

But you are if the personal incentives in your situation are bad enough.

For an extreme example. You might not want to support the black market for human organs. You know how terrible it is as a system. But you’ll die if you don’t buy a black market organ. Is it reasonable to expect everyone to give their life for that ideal? No.

It is possible (common really) for individuals to make completely rational, sensible, even correct decisions, which ultimately contribute to a larger systemically catastrophic problem. It comes from improperly aligned incentives within the system. For examples, you can reference the prisoners dilemma.

This kind of sounds like it should be a !nottheonion@lemmy.world headline.

Yes! You’re right!
Selling access to the algo directly would be terrible for users. The SEO companies would all know exactly how to game the system, and ruin Google search completely. That would be soooo bad.

Google CEO Sundar Pichai seemed genuinely alarmed at the prospect of being forced to license Google’s search index and algorithm

This is almost exactly what Kagi suggested.
The hardest part of internet search is building the search Index. It’s massive. Practically a whole copy of the internet. Selling other provider access to Google’s search index means new businesses and new business models can be created. My only concern is the “and algorithm” part. That almost sounds like the current state of things. Where companies can run queries to google and receive standard results filtered by Google’s algorithm. Direct access to the index is needed without Google’s algorithm, so others can use their own algorithm. But maybe they meant and/or, so companies can choose to be a real “Google white label” or something more.

This would be interesting.
That would mean if you are training an AI model at home, you can copy any movie show or music you want, legally.

I don’t know the details of exactly what and how it works. But “Parental Controls” is what you want to search for in the settings.