251–260 of 486 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Didn't catholics in britain have a hard time og it for some period? Didn't that contribute to internal instability? Or am i misrecalling history lessons?
Much earlier period in history before there was a United Kindom.
To be honest, it caught me by surprise how politically unified the whole top management is, and how strong their political convictions are. It is publicly known that Eric Schmidt for example supports democrats, but I (wrongly) supposed that is mostly his personal affinity. Now it seems that not; the company as a whole supports one political party. Now the question is how is this reflected in their products (search, G…
Isn't it more that they're against Trump, and what the Republican party has become? They are only for one political party because there is only one alternative. Back in the day, I know that their leadership was close with people like Colin Powell and Kissinger, so there are probably some traditional republican values held, it's just that in recent years the party has become completely toxic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suppose that's possible , but it seems rather convoluted. Why wouldn't those hypothetical funders simply bribe both branches of the status quo party like every other rich asshole does? I might change my mind about all this if any of the actually-different young democrats who have forsworn such financing are actually elected this fall...
I'm not aware of any such ridiculous sites on the left side of the spectrum, insofar as you could call the democrats 'left', in most countries a party with their political stance would still be on the right. Some would argue the USA does not have a functioning left wing party.
The Democrats are so mired in their internal politics and fear of having and identity they produced an agenda and candidate so weak they lost to a senile compulsive liar.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think they are being genuine when they say their plan is to combat fake news with AI; their business is built around AI. It is one of their core competencies. I think they are going to fail, and quietly increase the human involvement once they realize that their AI isn't good enough. Then they will slowly scale back the humans as their AI improves, until the next controversy when they realize that they still need h…
There are plenty of humans involved in evaluating the algorithm. See my other post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17975122 If you mean humans rating every new page on the Internet in real time, this isn't possible. It's machines or nothing.
There are like days of lag, in search engine results, unless you eagerly, eagerly, eagerly force your way into strategic points of the existing index for each independent search engine, separately.
Nevermind DNS replication, which is it's own beast. So, from domain registration, to DNS replication, to getting listed, to becoming relevant (which requires all kinds of meta tags and dom restructuring for crawlability, plus roll-your-own-site-maps, and so on), to being recognized as a reliable source of information, such as press releases, before we even get to news possibly going viral?
Well, news actually doesn't even go viral without humans in the loop. I mean consider how viral a high karma rank gets you on hacker news? It's just enough to get 10K eyes on a site in unison, to overwhelm a non-load-balanced server. And that's the voting of users doing all the work.
And then to include heavier social sites like reddit, twitter and facebook in the mix? That's almost purely human opinion performing the ranking factor. The attention of the users closes the feedback loop, and the chain reaction can strap a booster rocket to notoriety.
So, I'd almost say the really real time (like viral real time) stuff is almost only humans doing the work, and the robots are just there for the chatter threshold tripwires.
To be honest, it caught me by surprise how politically unified the whole top management is, and how strong their political convictions are. It is publicly known that Eric Schmidt for example supports democrats, but I (wrongly) supposed that is mostly his personal affinity. Now it seems that not; the company as a whole supports one political party. Now the question is how is this reflected in their products (search, G…
Isn't it more that they're against Trump, and what the Republican party has become? They are only for one political party because there is only one alternative. Back in the day, I know that their leadership was close with people like Colin Powell and Kissinger, so there are probably some traditional republican values held, it's just that in recent years the party has become completely toxic.
I find it a bit absurd when I hear pundits and media types claim that liberal bias doesn't exists in silicon valley tech companies (top to bottom). As somebody who lived in San Francisco for five plus years, I can firmly attest it is more than bias. It's utter disdain, hatred, and prejudice. Just look at how James Damore was handled it should be clear that diversity of thought and individualism is not accepted. It's…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Its interesting to think about Brietbart putting this out there as some 'evil' thing, Never worked at Google, but as they say it went about as I would have expected based on my outside perspective. Or at least I wasn't stunned by anything in particular... Overall I think what people dislike is the disconnect between the PR message of "all opinions are welcome / we are open / neutral" vs the reality of them being fa…
Just because there’s a semi-uniform political bend doesn’t mean they’re biased in product. The ACLU backed the KKK’s right to March, but clearly doesn’t stand with the KKK’s values. That’s something the Breitbart audience can’t wrap their mind around, as they’d never do the same.
Which clearly reveals _your_ bias. Well done.
You can't compare Google to the ACLU.
The ACLU has a track record defending free speech and freedom of expression. As long as the speech and expression does not contravene any laws the ACLU will defend it – it's irrelevant to them what values the speech and expression they are defending promotes or espouses. And, when you think about it, it's very unlikely that the ACLU will be forced to defend speech and expression nobody has a problem with so they are going to be defending speech and expression that gets peoples backs up.
Google on the other hand has no consistent track record of being neutral when it comes to content on their platforms. There's no transparency and insight into their deliberation processes. So if the group-think at Google comes down on one side or the other and they don't have a hands-off approach then that's very worrying. Of course, if you subscribe to Google's version of reality then you're going to be very happy with that but if you don't then too bad for you. If tech companies want to alienate a good chunk of their user base then they better be prepared for the backlash up to and including regulation and migration away to services that do a better job at upholding the ideals of free speech and expression.
This video presents as if the leadership is coddling a room full of kindergartners sad over the loaner class pet going home. Company full of children.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Much earlier period in history before there was a United Kindom.
Yes, a much earlier period that ended in the distant past of 1998. Sectarian violence is now limited to pubs and football matches rather than high explosive.
And about to kick off again thanks to Brexit, because it was never really solved, just pushed aside for long enough for people (particularly people in Westminster) to start to forget.