character: it’s unmistakeable

authenticity: it’s honest, it doesn’t lie about itself or pretend to be something it’s not

integrity: it has a set of values it pursues & doesn’t betray

it’s never been about how little you can do, it’s about just how much you can do with as little as possible

minimalism has been falsely taken as the origin of greatness when it’s merely a byproduct

it’s basically limit testing with the ability to respawn irl

and then you can live through experiences and learn from them before they ever happen

you get to live through at least two lives in the same time an animal without imagination would only live one

it’s gathering >100% experience by circumventing the limitations of linear time

that’s OP

and other sensory inputs

it just mimics those signals and sends out faux versions of them based on what it predicts the signal would be ?

is that how it works ?

all that and a new state-of-the-art design (there is so much room for innovation but also just great execution, the bar is low; in the industry in general not just duckduckgo)

& you’ll have the glow-up of a century

okay overthrow is maybe an exaggeration but you could take a hefty chunk off their market share if done right

and Duck would mesh well with their other products and services

they already have Duck.ai

Duck AI, Duck Search, Duck Browser

people underestimate marketing so much it’s puzzling

you can overthrow google if you can captivate people

make it fashionable to use your search engine

it’s not fashionable

it’s nice that it’s even considered but if you’re gonna do this why not do it right ?

this is so half-baked

apple got this right 12 years ago

over a decade later and this is the best anyone can do ? nobody else seems to even consider corner continuity

so disappointing

I assume they skipped this because it would require handling the case of the radii of 2 corners clipping into each other, which they would have to for a continuous capsule shape for example (which literally isn’t possible to make with the current draft’s approach)

not only that but there is no accounting for the perceived difference in size between a "regular" arc corner and a continuous one

the latter requires a much larger radius to appear to be the same size as the former

*impact on the life of the average person

yeah yeah 100 looks better and makes more sense in base 10 fine

if the upper bound was 120% we would be able to evenly divide into thirds without getting infinitely repeating numbers

100 / 2 = 50
100 / 3 = 33.333333…
100 / 4 = 25
100 / 5 = 20
100 / 6 = 16.666666…

120 / 2 = 60
120 / 3 = 40
120 / 4 = 30
120 / 5 = 24
120 / 6 = 20