Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The man who killed Google Search?

wheresyoured.at

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 939 posts

Re: The man who killed Google Search?

#301

Post by mrguyorama »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #277
neilv wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and gives us a name to actually blame. Understanding the dynamics is great, and we can learn from that, and apply it to other situations. As for who to blame for something a company does, shouldn't outsiders blame the entire company? That's our interface, and also how we can hold the company accountable for its collective behavior. It's also a defense against scapegoating: it wasn't just one person who made a unila…

> shouldn't outsiders blame the entire company No, I firmly believe that this level of indirection over-diffuses responsibility in a way that enables the malfeseance we're observing. It's a social dark pattern that I'm keen to identify and disrupt.

You need to do both

The company should be held responsible for bad actions AND so should the individuals.

Re: The man who killed Google Search?

#302

Post by ethbr1 »

dekhn wrote: post #273
kelnos wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure it does prevent some harm that would otherwise happen. There are certainly people in the world who would think twice about breaking an oath they've made, regardless of whether or not you think it's goofy. And I think that is really part of the problem. The idea that something like this is "goofy" just makes me feel profoundly sad. Do people just not care about integrity anymore, to the point that asking some…

Perhaps the people who think it's goofy may have actually put some thought behind their statements and have good reasons? For example, I find the oath as written to be effectively impossible to implement- it's very lofty sounding, but depends greatly on the nature of "honesty": "I shall participate in none but honest enterprises" Who defines honesty in this context? What if two engineers disagree in their interpretat…

> Signing a vacuous unimplementable statement isn't integrity, it's mindless follower behavior.

Aspirational ethics exist outside of verifiable scenarios.

Re: The man who killed Google Search?

#303

Post by secondcoming »

kelnos wrote: post #268
delduca wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Get it until the Manifesto V3.

There's a simple solution to that: stop using Chrome. It is beyond me why so many people still use a web browser made by a company that wants nothing more than to track you and serve you ads. It's maybe excusable or at least understandable that so many average, non-technical users are still on Chrome, but anyone who knows anything about technology? Shame. (Yes, I know, some people actually need to use Chrome for what…

People use it because web devs force them to use it

Re: The man who killed Google Search?

#304

Post by kreeben »

ppeetteerr wrote: post #169

What killed Google Search are the AI research papers that ultimately led to the rise of OpenAI

word2vec, invented by Google, killed Google?

I mean, it would serve as a terrific headline but I don't really buy it, do you?

I think it's more "Very poor search results, infested with ads, killed Google's dreams of becoming the next Microsoft and will now die a slow death and end up making millions instead of billions".

Dying might not be that bad, after all.

Re: The man who killed Google Search?

#305

Post by binarymax »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #266
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Companies this size die several years before the body hits the floor. They're dead when everyone starts to hate them and someone says "no, look how much money they're making, they're fine." That's the fatal blow, because they think they're fine, and keep doing the things that make everyone hate them. At that point you're just waiting for someone else to offer an alternative. Then people prefer the alternative because…

That sounds a lot like Kodak. I remember running into Kodak engineers, at an event in the 1990s, and they were all complaining about the same thing. They were digital engineers, and they were complaining that film people kept sabotaging their projects. Kodak invented the digital camera. They should have ruled the roost (at least, until the iPhone came out). Instead, they imploded, almost overnight. The film part was…

If they owned the digital camera space like they should have, who’s to say they wouldn’t have eventually released a smartphone. It probably would have been an absolutely incredible camera first, and some mobile internet and phone features second.

One can really dream up a fascinating alternate timeline of iKodak if they didnt shoot themselves in the foot.

Re: The man who killed Google Search?

#307

Post by chasd00 »

readyplayernull wrote: post #220

> But do you know who has? Sundar Pichai, who previously worked at McKinsey — arguably the most morally abhorrent company that has ever existed, having played roles both in the 2008 financial crisis (where it encouraged banks to load up on debt and flawed mortgage-backed securities) and the ongoing opioid crisis, where it effectively advised Purdue Pharma on how to “growth hack” sales of Oxycontin. That helps explain…

my sister use to work at McKinsey, her favorite story was working on Obama's and McCain's campaign strategy at the same time. Heh talking about picking winners..

Re: The man who killed Google Search?

#308

Post by etempleton »

sailfast wrote: post #240
wayne-li2 wrote: post #222

Even though I agree with what the author is saying, the tone of this article is off putting to me. There are ways to call out people for being bad at their job without resorting to “class traitor” and “ratfucker”. That being said, Google search is 100% dead. I append “reddit” to every Google query to get actual results from people, and I don’t see it on Reddit, I give up on my query.

Agreed - I can appreciate the sentiment and the history, but the ad hominem is not really necessary to prove the point and undermines the credibility of the post. I still use Google, but man has it become difficult to get to what I want.

I agree, but all of the alternatives are no better. Bing and Duck Duck Go are okay sometimes, but truly terrible other times. Google is consistently worse than it once was, but still better than the competition.

I know search is hard to do well, but if Google is truly floundering where is the startup that for it better and not just better for a very specific niche area, but truly better across the board?

Re: The man who killed Google Search?

#309

Post by sevagh »

kelnos wrote: post #256
sevagh wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The presence of an oath doesn't prevent traditional certified engineers from causing harm. It's just a goofy ritual.

I'm sure it does prevent some harm that would otherwise happen. There are certainly people in the world who would think twice about breaking an oath they've made, regardless of whether or not you think it's goofy. And I think that is really part of the problem. The idea that something like this is "goofy" just makes me feel profoundly sad. Do people just not care about integrity anymore, to the point that asking some…

I was part of one of these oaths, I have an iron ring (Canada). It's just, look around you. Every bridge collapse, every oil spill had some "certified oathkeeper" or a team of them behind it.

The presence of a ceremony - no matter how important it was in the past - just doesn't hold value anymore. I doubt that Professional Engineers(TM) that have signed the oath are among us operating on a higher plane of morality and gravitas. They're, most likely, by Occam's razor, just another person.

The idea that any amount of my peers (or myself) present at the same ceremony take this oath seriously is laughable. It's a wine and cheese event before you get your degree, nothing more.

Post reply on HN