Yep that checks out
1999 == One thousand, nine hundreds, four twenties, ten, nine.
I studied French in grade school over ten years and I love it. But the way numbers convert into language is wild. I tease it with love.
My thought as a 6 year old was "aw, are soixante-dix, quatre-vingt, and quatre-vingt-dix too complicated for you?"
Even now, while I think the French numbers make objectively no sense (even the countries that do count in 20s are at least more consistent than us), I can't help but find the Swiss and Belgian numbers "cute". Like "Baby's first 70 to 99".
And for whatever reason, I don't have the same opinion about 70-99 in English, Portuguese or Spanish.
Edit: just to be clear, I think my thoughts about it are absurd but they're too deeply engrained and decades old to shed completely.
I love it!
We were allegedly headed to sanity but l'Academie was like "actually let's stick to soixante-dix, quatre-vingt, and quatre-vingt-dix".
I searched Kagi for “veterans day 2025” the other day (on Veterans Day, when I was unsure) and it answered
“= today”
(though yes, they are funny)
https://help.kagi.com/kagi/settings/widgets.html
https://help.kagi.com/kagi/features/search-operators.html#qu...
More generally, these results aren’t “found”, they are conceived on the spot.
I reported this as a bug about 6 months ago, and was quickly told it was planned to be fixed. But it hasn't been fixed. I checked in again a few weeks ago to see if there was any progress, and apparently they've given up because it is too hard: "Apologies, seems I forgot to update the thread. Unfortunately it is in fact trickier than it looks to dedupe these results. Mainly this is a result of how we work with results from upstream sources, and deduping is heavily complicated by caching issues."
Kagi, you're generally great. I'm usually happy to be a paying customer. But I refuse to believe that deduping a list of URL's is actually too hard for you. Maybe I'm one of the few users who actually cares about searching for web pages, but for my use cases my search results would be much better if you actually gave me more results when I click on "More results". How is this not considered core functionality for a search engine? Please fix this!
Here's the bug report: https://kagifeedback.org/d/7022-clicking-more-results-yields...
Really stupid bug that probably only happens with old.Reddit or RES or something. But it’s nice in that it keeps me off of Reddit I guess.
Unlikely to be fixed though since it causes you to very quickly skip the repeat content (without having to serve you more than headlines) and see more ads. The "bug" multiplies the value they can get from each post which is a very important metric especially as llm slop has started to destroy perceived value from random posts from strangers (reddits only resource).
I'm not saying they introduced it on purpose the way Google intentionally showed bad search results to encourage a second query but I'm not confident that fixing it will be high on the priority list until it makes people leave the site.
I feel like that is either hubris (they are overconfident in their ranking) or they have some other reason. Now you bring this up, and it seems to fit with the same kind of thing.
It reminds me of this article which brings up a bunch of suspicious things about search engines, and talks about how weird it is that so many engines limit how far you can go into the results: https://archive.org/details/search-timeline
Recently it has not had such a strong quality margin, which I suspect is due to the AI slop that all of the search engines are fighting against (due to errors both ways in their detection). I'm hoping this is temporary.
To be clear, I don't use any of their features except search (and domain filtering).
[0] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/10/3/how-much-of-europes...
In short: pick smart battles.
If you need something that’s very noticeably better than its competition, then yes.
If you are okay with all of the terrible that comes with using LLM services as a search engine replacement, then probably no.
If you despise the amount of second guessing and source checking required to use LLMs as search tools, then yes.
What are you talking about LLM services? default search behavior does not use any LLMs (except any Google might use to reorder their top 10 results internally).
I can outright block domains or just adjust their weight. Great for my personal prefs but also huge with the family account and helping keep the BS out of sight for the kids without going full restrictive.
The initial false answer was baldly asserted by the LLM without sources in the first two paragraphs but some of the phrasing it used was enough to locate the non-authoritative blog content it was apparently laundering. Had it accurately cited sources, it would’ve been easy to see that this random WordPress site saying X wasn’t as authoritative as the PubMed hits saying !X.
Has access to kagi search which is a also a superset of search backends for the assistant
Still, I think the down sides of LLMs outweigh the benefits for most use cases.
amelius•2mo ago