It’s Italy, there is no chance of that efficiency. This is - as usual - stuff done to prevent pirated sport content. Nothing else has ever and probably will ever be done.

It is absolutely dependent on what I am making.

In general my preference is tortiglioni/elicoidali, but that doesn’t work with everything. As long pasta I prefer thick spaghetti-like shapes, like vermicelli, spaghetti alla chitarra or tonnarelli (with egg). Obviously if we are talking about fresh pasta there is also much to choose from, but I would say one of my favorite type is quadrucci, very good in soups. Also good gnocchi are amazing (do they count as pasta?), bad gnocchi are terrible.

Pasta that I don’t like the most, probably farfalle and bucatini. Fun fact, bucatini are called “abbotta straccioni” in Rome, which roughly translates to “peasants stuffers”, because more uneducated people who wouldn’t know how to eat long pasta would “suck” and ingest lots of air (due to the hole) and get filled more, so restaurants could serve smaller portions. To this day, I will take tonnarelli/gnocchi/rigatoni with amatriciana to bucatini any day.

Right, then let me elaborate.

Take furries. Using a moralistic approach such as yours I could conclude that they are freaks who encourage bestiality. Instead I think that consenting adults can do what they want as long as they are not harming anybody (this part was obviously implied, but suddenly you lost the ability to use context and imply things when it was convenient to build a strawman).

Take women with control-related kinks. Using your moralistic approach I could go tell them that they are victims of bla bla bla who internalized bla bla bla, and that ultimately men who accept to please those kinks perpetrate bla bla bla. Instead, I think that consenting adults can get off the way they want.

I could go on, but the point is clear, hopefully.

On this topic you are a bigot. You are a bigot because you are essentially using a dogma that women can only act as victims of a system that oppresses them and nothing else. You are stripping away agency, and applying rigid moral rules grounded in that dogma. You are using a very similar approach that homophobes use to hate on gay people, you just think that you are doing it for good© reasons to defend oppressed minorities; or singular actually, because this only applies to women dating older men I suppose? Or you also have other definitions for wrong couples? Black woman/white man? Indigenous woman/white man? Poor woman/rich man? And what if this was a lesbian couple? 25yo woman/50+ woman?

I would like to know the mental gymnastic to bend that “moral principle” so that you don’t end up against mixed race couples or similar, because if you consider people only expression of their social group, you absolutely can conclude that some (all?) of those relationships represent and perpetrate the same power inequality that exists between their demographics.

Elsewhere you suggested to people to “check your own biases”, maybe you can take your own suggestion here and try to see if your analysis fell short.

Yes, it’s the same thing here, great parallel.

“We don’t judge other people sexual preferences, unless they are the wrong ones according to me”

Hard disagree.

Also there are plenty of opposite examples (i.e., older women celebrities dating younger guys), what is that a symptom of?

This has nothing to do with feminism imho. In fact, I would say the opposite, it’s an attempt to prescribe what women should do. Religious morality.

I would or wouldn’t do lots of things that I accept others might do. My morality is not universal. I leave this kind of thinking to religion.

And this notion that you should date only people your age where does it come from? It seems a completely arbitrary moral claim to me.

People are allowed to date for whatever reason they want. As long as two adults are freely consenting it’s not up to you to be the moral police and decide what should push people to date each other.

They can date for the looks, to look or feel younger, to go outside their comfort zone, for sexual pleasure, for pure intellectual attraction, for material benefit, for […long list].

This is one of the instances in which the good goal of fighting abuse becomes bigotry. It’s basically like religious moralism.

Bergoglio brown?

He is considered woke because even in the church there are factions and he belongs to the one which is slightly more open on certain topics, or at least embraced (initially) a more populistic façade that pretended the church was modernizing.

In fact criticism against him is not an exclusive of US fundamentalists.

Sure bro, and if you are a lebanese civilian who sees bombs killing your family I am sure you think of all the good impact that those have and thank Israel and the US.

I will close it here, I have no intention to convince you and there is no chance that someone who supports Israel will convince me of any moral argument.

Fair enough, hopefully you can see how someone from - say - Lebanon would see it differently.

Ufff that’s a brave moral stance to have. You do you, I completely disagree with it though.

Thanks for elaborating anyway.

I hope you can at least see how a person from another country might have a similar perspective as you, but reversed, therefore demanding kagi (or other companies) not to give money to US. Not everyone will have this US-centric perspective.

US gives (incl. donating) weapons to Israel with the precise purpose of those being used in the current massacres. Also let’s not forget this is an absolutely momentary perspective. US was invading, torturing and bombing civilians until few years ago.

Now, I won’t claim it is equivalent, because it’s not and frankly doesn’t matter: if your morals say that one is OK and the other is not then I will simply disagree with those morals.

To me a moral argument is based on principles: if I don’t want my money to be spent on killing people, it doesn’t matter much if the killing happens slightly indirectly. Solid principles don’t hide behind thin layers of deniability.

So, I would expect someone with ironclad morals that want to avoid a small and indirect amount of money that to end up to Russia to also recognize that if the money go to the US government they have a pretty nice chance to also to result in people being killed (or right now to fund deportations etc.). However, I am interested in your perspective. You have stressed a lot on the two things not being equal, maybe you can explain how this difference changes everything for you, and makes one okay while the other unacceptable.

So they cancel each other? Do you get a choice when you pay a US company to state that those taxes will need to go to Ukraine and not Israel?

Also there is a quantitative difference:

• yandex is a small % of kagi cost, of that a small percentage will go to Russian government (directly or indirectly) and of those money a part will go into military.
• kagi is US based, and Google is their main cost center. So if you consider a 10$ subscription a much much bigger chunk will go to US companies or people - who also live in US and spend money there, generating taxes. A part of all these money will go into weapons sent to Israel (or to bomb Somalia, etc.). A part will also go to Ukraine, which for the broken watch theory is one of the few times US military expense is used for something good (probably worth some caveats but OK).

Can you please elaborate what causes for you to perceive these two facts as completely different?

What about weapons? Money buy those too. Or that doesn’t count for your moral principles?

So does US one in Palestine. So does UAE, and many more. It’s not a matter of “everyone bad” is the fact that legitimately if the criteria is no paying anybody in a country that is involved in killing people, or that uses services from such a country, you reach everyone. And in this case it would be not using kagi directly as a US company.

The war in Ukraine is much closer to me, but if we are talking principles I need to understand that a person from Lebanon or Palestine, or other places might have different perspective and they would demand that “we don’t do business to X” has a different “X”. So to accommodate most or all of these perspectives, you need to necessarily include more countries, as the Russian invasion of Ukraine is not the only active war at the moment.

Actually they have no VC in the traditional sense! They did private investment rounds, and I think they raised like 400k from like 60 investors or something. The actual numbers might be off, but I remember looking into this and it was lime 10/20k per investor on average, basically retail amounts.

“Oh no, a person who didn’t demonstrate any quality worth of respect so far is calling me names”. Spare the effort, insults only work when someone values your opinion. You clearly demonstrated not being able to even argue your opinion.

Now I will block you and go earn my salary lobbying in other threads /s

There are a ton of imports that are not (yet) sanctioned, and therefore tons of companies that did not divest.

As I mentioned, when possible or equivalent I absolutely support the choice. In this case, there are conflicting benefits and everyone can do their choices based on the way they value the different benefits.

This obviously can’t be an absolute moral argument, otherwise residing in US or Russia (or UAE, or China and many many more countries) would be immoral ipso facto, and same for buying any product made by any company in those countries. The globalized world makes this basically impossible.

Anyway, I feel we are going in circles now, so I will close it here.