MoonlightFox

Me too. Not going to make something as simple as this difficult.

I want to leave, I leave. Giving others the opportunity to say goodbye is polite in my opinion. A wave to the group and a quick round of hugs if that makes sense.

At a minimum one should say goodbye to the host.

It's not about privacy.

But I can address that first. It's hard to argue that Kagi can be trusted with your data in my opinion, because they - unlike DDG and Startpage handles payments from you. So they know exactly who you are and what you search for. You have to trust them when they say they don't log. This in itself is enough for me not to use them.

Besides that the main problem is that Yandex is a Russian company. Russia is currently invading a democratic peaceful independent nation.

A lot of countries including my own are sanctioning Russia and Russian companies. I feel that indirectly supporting a Russian company is contributing to the Russian war economy. The sanctions are there for a reason, to hurt the Russian economy, so that they are pressured to stop the war.

Kagi has a choice and they have decided to stay on the wrong side of history. They have multiple explanations online, but none of them is sufficient in my opinion. Staying "apolitical" is a political choice when there is an agressor.

FYI: Kagi uses the Russian search engine Yandex as well and have no plans of changing it.

Mentioning it, as to some it might be an issue indirectly financially supporting a Russian company.

Just search for Kagi Yandex and you will get plenty officiak sources

Thank you for a thorough explanation, really interesting

I have tested Deepseek and have found it to be pretty open about censorship in at least many topics. I asked it some questions about China and it mentioned issues with Xinjiang, Uyghurs, and Taiwan. I did not bring it up, or try to trick it into talking about it. It was mentioned as some future challenges China will face.

It did not share explicitly what those issues were, but that those are sensitive issues.

In other words it does acknowledge that there is censorship, I doubt that it is fully open about all the censorship, and potential bias if it has any baked in.

I did not experience any obvious bias or censorship.

I guess questions regarding Tiananmen square would be censored though, but how not asked.

I am not sure I entirely understand what you are saying here. Can you rephrase it, please?

Yes, his views of the world is not correct imo. I just saw an opportunity to talk about LLMs and privacy and took it

This is answered as a Scandinavian.

One of the biggest issues I see with Deepseek and really any AI is that people feed it with sensitive data. Deepseek is probably not a big issue as long as people don't share sensitive data about other people.

People find a tool that make them more effective, then they use it at work and insert data that should not be shared unfortunately.

The risk is also there for ChatGPT and Claude. The difference is that they are not a company from a country that is considered adversarial by my government.

USA is not perfect, far from it, and we KNOW from the Snowden leaks that they can't be trusted. Yet, they are allies and can thus by extension be more trusted, than a country that has laws that force cooperation by companies and people worldwide.

As a European I prefer that my data is leaked to the USA over China. But I trust neither with it.

I might be wrong, and would like to learn that I am wrong. So feel free to try to convince me otherwise.

Recommended reading: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Intelligence_Law_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybersecurity_Law_of_the_People's_Republic_of_China

Looks fun, just ordered the game now! 😊

I know we should not objectify people, and I rarely do.

That said.. As a heterosexual man I got to say that this is one of the first times I have truly seen how handsome Elvis was. God damn.

More stock diversification is the answer, not manual filtrering or a tilt towards "stable" stocks. If that does not provide a risk that is tolerable for an investor, then a lower stock allocation is the next step.

For a long time people have trusted their money in the 500 biggest US companies, but ignoring the world and ignoring smaller companies. This does not really make that much sense, but actually makes more sense if you are not an American.

Americans work in the US economy, and often invest in the US economy. Doing so makes you take on additional risk. An allocation towards the entire global stock market gives roughly 50% exposure to US stocks already.

If the US stock market takes a huge dive, then the value of your assets drop, and at the same time you have an increased risk of losing your job.

While I understand your point here, but a 10% drop amongst tech companies should not be a huge drop for a properly diversified 100% stock based global index fund.

A 10% drop in general is expected for index funds, that's why you should have a long time horizon. If a drop of 50% is more than you can handle then the stock allocation should be lowered from 100% and bonds increased by the same amount. S&P500 is not enough diversification, not nearly enough. Funds that track MSCI ACWI is a lot better in terms of diversification, and diversification is the ONLY free meal in investing.