I understand, but the shift in user behaviour is significant and I think websites are not taking it into account. If the users move more and more to AI, and since Google introduced AI mode it’s only a question of time until it becomes the default, we will see more and more of what we thing are AI crawlers and less and less organic users.

AI seems to be the new middleman between you and the user, and if you block the middleman, you block the user. For people with hobby websites or established sites it may make sense because people either know of them, or getting more exposure is not a wish or requirement, but for everyone else, it will be painful.

I just realized an interesting thing - if I use Gemini, and tell it to do deep research, it actually goes to the websites it knows/finds, and looks up the content to provide up-to-date answers. So, some of those AI crawlers are actually not crawlers, but actual users who just use AI instead of coming directly to the site.

Soo… blocking AI completely could also potentially reduce exposure, especially as more and more people use AI to basically do searches instead of browsing themselves. That would also explain the amount of requests daily - could be simply different users using AI to research for some topic.

Point is, you should evaluate if the AI requests are just proxies of real users, and blocking AI blocks real users from knowing your site exists.

Anubis is the name of the tool. Also, Cloudflare just announced they have something against AI scrapers.

But… Samsung also needs twice as many charges because for whatever reason, their batteries simply don’t last as long. Timewise, you get the same lifetime, from both. What good does a larger charging count bring, if you need to charge it twice as much? Misleading spec.

However, China has since grown significantly, and Taiwan no longer claims to be the government of mainland China, so that reason goes away.

The thing that we call “Taiwan” is an island, not a country, the country is “Republic of China” (ROC). We call it mostly Taiwan, because there is the People’s Republic of China (PRC) which is the mainland China. So you still have 2 countries, next to each other, both claiming to have the name “China”.

You claim the name, you claim the country.

Could be, but in the end, no risk no reward. People who do risk, are the ones who get rewarded.

Turn off internet access, or throttle it to the minimal usable speed.

That’s corruption, and it’s totally something else, but nevertheless there might be others who had no idea, but had the stock at the right moment, and sold as it was high. So, even in cases where the powerful play, the small ones, if lucky, could massively win.

On the other hand, you had the worlds wealthiest man, being second hand to the most powerful man on the planet, and he lost billions. So… I wouldn’t call those that much significant. I bet there are tons of smaller examples where CEO’s manipulate the stock of their own company that fly under the radar. But overall, in general, especially if you invest into ETFs (groups of stocks) you will barely notice anything and life goes on as usual. And the usual is 6-8% win per year on average.

Pardon my expression, everyone can have a lot of money.

A man who doesn’t want anything is rich, even if he doesn’t have money. I adjusted my comment accordingly.

Both point 2 and 3 are false. You have examples for both in the current US affairs. Please elaborate if you know something that the rest of us doesn’t.

Why do all solutions need to be destructive? The stocks and companies exist to make one thing - maximize the stakeholder value. So, to get rich, one just needs to - hold stocks, and the company works to make you money. Nothing more, nothing less. But why are so little people actually owning stocks? Because you don’t get tought in school about financial literacy.

Money is actually on the table for everyone to grab, just that majority of the people lack basic knowledge - where is the table and how to get to it.

Just teach people in school how to manage stocks, and everyone can be rich have a lot of money.

Poor people are poor just because they don’t know how to participate in the stock market. Fight me.

Gemini depends on the Google app, disable it, and it dies.

Have you noticed how the Google app, the one that supposedly just does search and list news articles, has like 400 MB? Over time it accumulated 2GB cache… how?

Did I say anywhere that the 30:70 means a really had 30:70 cap and that nobody after that is free to join or leave the job? Did I say that the 30% is exactly, not more not less, the amount of men who want to for ex. work in daycare?

Because more women than men want to be in daycare, it’s unrealistic to expect the same amount of men want to be in daycase as women. And the gender ratio of employees doesn’t mean thats also the ratio of what kids will take away from this. Does this mean that in daycare without any men the kids have only 50% of the care they need? Of course not.

Again, ONE DOESNT EXCLUDE THE OTHER. Everyone has empathy and resilience, but so far in general women tend to be better at empathy and men in resilience. Why force one to do both, when both can thrive in what they do better?

There was nothing wrong with that role then, and there is nothing wrong with the role now. The main difference is that in 1950 women had no choice but to be a housewife, and today women have choices, and when comparing them, being a housewife doesn’t look half as bad.

Well, after your 2nd post with the same thing I thought this is how you wanna communicate.

True, if we are talking as if today was 1950 and the socioeconomic situation were the same. But it’s not. There’s almost 80 years of progress and the socioeconomic situation is not even comparable. So, although true it was a problem 80 years ago, its a bit shortsigthed to claim same applies today.

But, whats the difference from a male that also wants to get to the same position, and is also not entrusted with the thing of importance? I see plenty of this scenarios play on a daily basis by males who want to get on top but are blocked by fellow males. Its the same situation, why would we need to provide help for the women but not for the men? Would you say that properly competent person would overcome this issue, regardless of their gender?

Well, that means at some point you either accept their religion and keep being romantically involved, or you can’t accept their religion and stop being romantically involved. It might be a temporary situation as you described, but nothing that can last in that scenario long term.