Thanks for the explanation!

Though it ought to be possible to only respond with the new self-signed cert when LE does the challenge and with the previous, properly signed cert otherwise.

I found https://codeberg.org/neilpang/acme.sh/wiki/TLS-ALPN-without-downtime which demonstrates one method to achieve that but I lack practical experience judge whether that’s optimal.

Forgive my ignorance but why would that incur a downtime?

The only way I can think of for downtime to happen if you switched certs before the new one was signed (in which case …don’t) or am I missing something?

It also strikes me as weird that LE requires 80 but does allow insecure 443 after a redirect. Why not just do/allow insecure 443 in the first place?

Sources claim an up to 100% mortality rate!

Right I can see where you’re coming from but that incentivises using Kagi less which IMV is a really bad incentive for all parties involved.

What if they made it so that a single search per month was fine too? You’d be back complaining that it’d be $5 if you only made 2 searches that month.

It’s really hard to set a cut-off here.

On the one hand yes but on the other hand this would also kind of set wrong incentives: to use Kagi search less because you’d need to pay more.
That’s not an incentive they or you would want.

I think what I’d like is how my mobile carrier handles their data limits: It’s not an entirely fair comparison because in that case, contrary to Kagi, there is no real cost associated with my degree of usage of the service, making them entirely arbitrary and unnecessary but besides that the unused data rolls over to the next month and that’s something Kagi could mirror.

I hover around 600-1000 searches per month but sometimes exceed 1000. If I could pay for 1000/month and accumulate a little buffer in the months where I search less, that would work for me. Though perhaps I’d still want to just simply pay for unlimited usage for peace of mind.

They do. The $10/month search plan is unlimited.

The only LLM stuff in their search product is the quick answers which can be turned off and page summaries which you have to explicitly click on in a submenu in any case.

As someone aware of how limited LLMs are, I’ve actually found both of these features to be useful for gauging whether a site is worth visiting or not at times which is part of the core feature set of a search engine IMHO.

A good while back they claimed that Google search index fees make up the vast majority of their costs, so I doubt any of your money is going towards LLM BS unless you actually pay for their assistant product.
I doubt Google has given them any discounts since then.

I’d expect the development of all of their product to be mostly funded by VC. If they can get VC idiots who fell for the “”“AI”“” hype to subsidise building an actually useful thing (the search product), that’s a win in my book, even if they also have to build the AI crap on the side to keep said VC idiots happy.

I doubt most user have any need for great nc performance.

I also doubt those “super performant nextcloud flakes” are actually any faster than a plain old default nc deployment; especially for our use-cases.

Using NixOS is a good recommendation though. Just don’t do flakes unless you actually understand what problem they intend to solve and how catastrophically bad they are at it.

I generally prefer to not get shit in my mouth at all but you do you.

Well none, it clearly says to call your physicist ;)

It’s entirely useless. Even more advanced views such as BetterBatteryStats or analysing a bug report only give minimally useful information.

The best you can do is disable shit you don’t need and measure what impact that has on power draw (usually measured in %/h).

Whatever I put on Lemmy or elsewhere on the fediverse implicitly grants a revocable license to everyone that allows them to view and replicate the verbatim content, by way of how the fediverse works. You may apply all the rights that e.g. fair use grants you of course but it does not grant you the right to perform derivative works; my content must be unaltered.

When I delete some piece of content, that license is effectively revoked and nobody is allowed to perform the verbatim content any longer. Continuing to do so is a clear copyright violation IMHO but it can be ethically fine in some specific cases (e.g. archival).

Due to the nature of how the fediverse, you can’t expect it to take effect immediately but it should at some point take effect and I should be able to manually cause it to immediately come into effect by e.g. contacting an instance admin to ask for a removed post of mine to be removed on their instance aswell.

In order to put something in the public domain, you need to explicitly do that. Publicising is not the same as putting something in the public domain.

This comment I’m writing here is not in the public domain and I don’t need to explicitly mention that. It’s “all rights reserved” by default in most western jurisdictions. You’re not allowed to do anything whatsoever with it other than what is covered by explicit exemptions from copyright such as fair use (e.g. you quote parts of my comment to reply to it).

Encoding my comment into the weights of a statistical model to closer imitate human writing is a derivative work (IMHO) and therefore needs explicit permission from the copyright holder (me) or licensee authorised by said copyright holder to sublicense it in such a way.

Feel free to go back to the post and read the edits. They may help shed some light on this. I also recommend checking Perplexity’s official docs.

You’re aware that it’s in their best interest to make everyone think their “”“AI”“” can execute advanced cognitive tasks, even if it has no ability to do so whatsoever and it’s mostly faked?

Taking what an “”“AI”“” company has to say about their product at face value in this part of the hype cycle is questionable at best.

sites like Reddit whose entire existence is due to user content, deciding they can police and monetize my content. They have no right

Um, not they do in fact have “every right” here. It’s shitty of course but you explicitly gave them that right in form of an perpetual, irrevocable, world-wide etc. license to do whatever they like to everything you publish on their site.

They also have every right to “police” your content, especially if it’s objectionable. If you post vile shit, trolling or other societal garbage behaviour on the internet, nobody wants to see it.

You will likely still hear the cell broadcast. Alerts of this level make every phone give off a piercing sound and even if your phone is dead, you will hear it from your neighbours’ because it’s loud.

This is not an Android feature. This is a Google feature and I believe it relies on a round-trip through their servers too.

it seems to me Android devices are too important to just let them be abandoned if Google goes full-proprietary

I wish it’d be that way.

It wouldn’t just be volunteers. Many companies have a huge stake in this OS and would continue to contribute.

If they don’t contribute now, I doubt they would then. They don’t have any incentive in making the AOSP better publicly because that also makes it better for their competitors.

I think all the OEMs would have individual contracts for source code access anyways. It’s not like open source is the only possible model for industry-wide code collaboration.

A majority of the code would/could be forked and maintained.

What makes you think that? If you’ve ever taken a look at the AOSP source code, you’ll know that it’s insanely huge. This isn’t something a small community of volunteers can reasonably maintain; just like a web browser.

Or a project like GrapheneOS that’s already based on Android code would be expanded to fill the void.

Again, who do you expect to take on that insane task?

GrapheneOS is regular-ass android with some modifications to make it more secure on top. It’s not “based on Android” it is (mostly) Android. It does some important modifications but that’s details, not basic functionality.
If Google were to cut updates to Android, GrapheneOS would (rightly) make a stink but ultimately have to cease because they cannot maintain the entire rest of the Android code to keep it secure. I suspect they’d rather (loudly) end the project than keep limping along without proper security patches.

You should worry about that in any case. The writing has been on the wall for quite some time now.