Ask HN: What's the worst thing that could happen to Google?

Post by btilly » Mon, Nov 02, 2009, 4:20 PM UTC

adw wrote: post #85

btilly wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

May I have some of what you're smoking? The Semantic Web depends on having everyone who writes web pages also categorize them. Whenever you have 20 different people categorizing content you're going to get 20 different interpretations of what the semantics mean. The vision of a decent, consistent categorization emerging across the web is a pipe dream. Furthermore the fundamental problem that Google solves is not find…

Much of the web is databases with a thin layer on top, and the whole point of the SW/LD architecture is that different sites don't need to agree on ontology; it just becomes an alternate, aggregatable database view, in a sense. I think a lot of the SW hype's overblown - and I've worked in the field - but you're attacking something which doesn't exist.

Post by Chronos » Wed, Nov 04, 2009, 7:29 AM UTC

dasht wrote: post #61

nl wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

22 points for this? Really? 1) Google hired and operated like Larry and Sergey's late night bull session.. Under Schmidt, et al. in recent years this appears to be starting to be reined in.. You do realize that Schmidt has been there since before they went public, right? ie, he was there for the hiring. They currently have slightly less headcount than at their peak, but they say (in their last earning call no less) t…

1) (Google as Page and Brin's bull session fantasy): Schmidt has been there for a long time, sure, but it's only in recent years that they've so clearly polarized between the "the guys" and Schmidt, the former representing vague hype and themselves and Schmidt being the voice that calms investors and analysts. As a small example, in the business press, Schmidt is being portrayed as the guy who spins cut-backs on empl…