Whom

You can still play Magic if you want to avoid Wizards, you can print proxies or (if you play online) use a foss client like Cockatrice. There are even tools to simulate drafts and such if you want some limits on what you can use.

The nice thing about card games is it's actually very easy to not give the companies behind them anything and treating them as folk games we all own.

The best I can say is that it technically does the job, just slowly and not particularly well. There really isn't anything which even approaches the search quality and featureset of Kagi. I don't even have the strongest opinion on working with Brave even though they're clearly awful given how monstrous both Google and Microsoft are (who are both part of the core foundation of their search), but their approach to this whole situation leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I turned off auto-renewal of my subscription but I really hope they take a step back and realize how much goodwill they're destroying for a significant part of their userbase so I can resubscribe. There's no suitable replacement.

I have mixed feelings about this whole thing. It's weird to me that Brave is a line too far for people when the scale of evil that Google and Microsoft has brought to the world is so much larger and Kagi was already sourcing from them, bothering no one who chose to use the service. Don't get me wrong, Brave sucks ass. I'm queer and homophobia is of course a very close issue to my heart, but I can't find any framing that makes Brave a bigger issue than fucking Microsoft. That said, I'd ideally like to see a response focused more on a pragmatic look at possible sources than a blanket "we won't get involved in politics."

I'd prefer a totally independent search engine ran entirely according to my principles if possible, but uh, have you used them? The search quality is horrific. I don't think I'll cancel yet, but the iffy response does put them on shakier ground.

I didn't say it was a problem. When security and privacy come into conflict, they pick security. Myself, I don't care as much and I'm perfectly happy grabbing those apps through Aurora Store. My personal preferences don't completely line up with them in this case, but it's a principled position in its own way, and they don't stop me from doing it the way I prefer.

They only support Pixel hardware because it's currently the only line that meets their list of requirements. I'd guess that if something came around which beat the Pixel line, they'd support it...but I also don't see anyone positioned to do that right now.

Though it's worth mentioning that the developers don't emphasize degoogling all that much and their community often have a bit of tension with degooglers who come to join them. The OS certainly meets the needs of those of us getting away from Google but the developers have no problem recommending workflows that go through Google (albeit with regular app access rather than the privileged and deeply integrated access on stock Android) when they're more secure than the alternatives. For example, they'll regularly suggest using sandboxed Google Play over F-Droid or Aurora Store, again because of their stance of prioritizing security above all.

It can sometimes be a bit annoying when your priorities are more about avoiding corporate surveillance than protecting yourself from attackers or a snooping government, but their work ends up supporting both regardless.

Not sure this is a great example for your point, given that in between then and now Europe conquered most of the world. I don't think it'd be hard to argue that in the long term they were the "victors" and as such their great opponents and fears became The Enemy in the history books.

This only really works as a counter-point if you interpret it overly literally as only referring to the winners of a particular conflict, whereas in my experience at least, this isn't what most people repeating the sentiment actually mean. Usually it's something more akin to "history is often written and taught in a way that furthers the goals of the current hegemon," that's just not quite as snappy.

I'm guessing the issue that makes people talk past each other when talking about this idea is that it's most famously used in reference to World War II where "winner of the conflict" and "leader of the global order" were about as close to the same thing as they have ever been.

They absolutely are not The solution but even if a gargantuan government project to make America a public transport-first country started today (and god knows the political will is not there yet), people would need SOMETHING to use which isn't as directly awful as traditional ICE vehicles during the many years it would take to switch us over. I want to live in a nearly 0 car world as much as you do and absolutely support political causes which bring us closer to that, but figuring out what to drive on these awful roads we have everywhere is a question that we can't avoid answering.

Yeah, I've been looking into possibly getting an EV and apart from renting in a place without anywhere to charge making it a nonstarter, another problem is that a routine trip like to my parents' and back is like 250 miles with nowhere to charge. Giving a bit of wiggle room for degrading batteries, doing anything other than making a straight line for their house that day, and random other inefficiencies, only the 300+ mile models are doable, maybe. I don't know how much to tack on for winter range loss. And we have very modest needs for our region, most of my family makes trips that long or more at least once or twice a week.

I understand that it's probably frustrating for people who get by well enough with an EV to see people who live similar lifestyles to them overestimate what they need, but in much of America at least there's a lot of people who have to drive hours and hours to get anywhere. Our needs are very real, not the result of fear mongering.

For my part, I'm currently thinking we'll just get ourselves some used shit from the late 90s to avoid the privacy hellscape of new cars and do our part environmentally by just using it as little as possible.

Maybe, but it's a silly battle to pick regardless. Decades ago, tons of things that are now everyday commonplace computing were widely considered the realm of AI and pursued by AI researchers. Playing chess well was true AI until we did it, and now it's nothing special. In reality, all "AI" has ever meant is doing something humanlike in a way that's still novel at the time you use the term, and that's fine. More precise terms still exist and can be employed when the distinction matters.

See the AI effect.