Orion Browser by Kagi

Doesn’t make sense commercially or socially. If you’re dabbling in specialist content, you’re fine waiting for it to filter out through ad-funded sources. The information density will be lower. And timing, too. But the whole point of the subscription is you have a stable base of financing and a committed community of knowledgeable people (likely in positions of power).

And practically speaking, the archive.is workarounds sort of are the solution for dabblers. It just taxes your time instead of wallet, which seems fair.

This is increasingly blocked by investigative outlets, particularly niche ones. It eventually filters through to folks who won’t or can’t pay. And for most people, that’s fine—they don’t need detailed and timely news.

If you have a wallet configured to pay a microtransaction for each day you browse to a certain site (of for x # of page loads, although that could incentivize strange web site behavior to increase the number of pages a reader goes to while they visit), then your wallet pays the small payment when you first browse to the page and you get an ad-free experience.

Otherwise, ads or a subscription paywall, depending on how the site wants to manage revenue.

the ad industry at large has caused damage - for you to think ads are not beneficial and intrusive or mind rape as you call it - through excessive mining, data selling.

but like an example - I gave - there's an article about cars - and in there there's a text item that says BMW or Cadillac has released a new V8 or electric sedans. if you're a car enthusiast that's relevant to you, if you're not - it's still information that maybe a year down the line - you might find relevant.

not logical but it works. and that's what runs the world - whether you like it or not. see the world as it is.

By viewing ad supported content, you are inherently agreeing to see ads. That is the product being sold. If you don't want to see ads, don't load the content. It's very simple and plainly understandable.

People using all manner of backdoor techniques to sidestep the parts that they don't want, kills the demand to create a product they do want.

So rather than a paywalled news org that has no ads on the other side of the wall, we have ublock origin and archive.is

you will see why the publishing business runs on ads. see the world for what it is not what you want it to be.

once people started publishing books or whatever in the 1600s - the world runs on ads.

it's only in the last 30 years - when ads got a bad rap due to tech bros who don't didn't learn humanities

That is to say, Kagi's stance is financial, not out of actually valuing privacy. Usually when companies are in this situation, it winds up being that they care more about appearances than reality, and will do what they think they can get away with. It's a wholly untrustworthy position for them to be in and for the CEO to present it otherwise decreases my confidence that he'll do the right thing.

> Sort of a big thing to accuse them of and then realize you just "misremembered". At a min you could edit your earlier comment to note this.

HN comments are not able to be edited (or deleted) after a somewhat brief period of time, which had already passed before I realized my error. The best I can do is correct myself in a followup comment, which is what I did.

I've often switched between Google and DDG but always came back to Google as in direct comparisons I was always not finding the right results in DDG. Kagi is the first time that I have not switched back a single time as nothing changed negatively in the quality and quantity of the results.

It's a noble goal to have your own search index, but it's duplicating a lot of work that others with much more resources already do well.

I know this wouldn't be easy but maybe such an arrangement would be possible where there is some shared index and then the partners can each use it, extend it... in their own way.

That really depends on where you live in the world. South Americans, Palestinians and Iranians would probably disagree with you.

Talk about an extraordinary case of recency bias. Cheap shot, I know, but I had to make it.

Europe currently defends itself because that's all it CAN do. They abandoned their armies because the continent outsourced defense spending/industry to the United States and Russia following WWII.

Wrong. The UK and France have several military bases in the middle east, thousands of kilometers away from home.

The NATO invasion of Libya is an example of how Europeans "know how to live in peace"

Ukraine didn't just disadvantage their neighbor. In international affairs, red lines are a common tool for expressing acceptable bounds of negotiation. Russia made it very explicit that if Ukraine joined NATO there would be conflict. We live in the real world, and "sovereignty" is not real; nations are not unconstrained agents that can do whatever they please. They have to weigh the effects of their actions and be willing and capable of defending the consequences. This has been true for all of human history, has never changed, and likely never will. You simply deluded yourself into thinking otherwise.

I will also add that in the modern world, peace has largely been maintained because the value of international commerce is much greater than the value derived from conflict. Economic integration is the best recipe for enduring tranquility. However, the US has pursued broad economic sanctions against Russia since the annexation of Crimea, all but ensuring that an invasion of Ukraine would be a profitable (or at least not harmful). In other words, the United States miscalculated, overplayed it's hand in pursuing a containment strategy against Russia and ultimately invited violence.

I loathe the charge that if you have any nuance and think the war is not ENTIERLY Russia's fault, then you must be brainwashed by propaganda.