Who'll be the next president – Google Search • Hacker News Board

Re: Who'll be the next president – Google Search

#51

Post by ck2 » Tue, Jun 23, 2015, 11:23 AM UTC

joelrunyon wrote: post #3

Another unintended consequence of Google doing the things that Google recommends you don't do (in this case, scraping sites). Can we talk about how terrible a piece of pro-hillary propaganda that was? Namely this: > America is ready for the leadership of a Hillary Clinton. A new history will be made when she becomes the leader of the free world. The world of women everywhere will change Sure, this sounds very reminis…

Hillary will be president for one reason.

Do you really want a third Bush in the White House for a third Iraq war?

Alternatively, do you really want a Bush picking the next two or three Supreme Court judges? It would set back the country into the 1960s. Voting rights, equality, access to abortion. All rolled back to 1960s with an imbalance of power in the supreme court.

Re: Who'll be the next president – Google Search

#52

Post by billpg » Tue, Jun 23, 2015, 11:24 AM UTC

DrStalker wrote: post #17

glogla wrote: post #5

Given that google shows different people different results for the same query, to tell people what they want to hear, I wonder if others see the same result I do.

I used incognito mode and the top hit was this page, so I guess Y Combinator will be ruling the USA shortly.

We're doomed!

Re: Who'll be the next president – Google Search

#53

Post by DanielBMarkham » Tue, Jun 23, 2015, 11:25 AM UTC

Okay, this is weird. I'm almost certain that within the last year or two one of the main Googlers said something like "People just want to be told what to do" It was quite a controversy at the time, and people argued that he was just being flip.

I thought it would make a nice addition to this story, juxtaposing people's desire for easy answers with an example of the type of easy answers Google provides folks. It could have kicked off a discussion about the very, very fine line between "helping people" and "telling them what to do"

Only now I can't find that quote anywhere on the internet. Huh?

Re: Who'll be the next president – Google Search

#54

Post by laumars » Tue, Jun 23, 2015, 11:27 AM UTC

HarrietJones wrote: post #32

Two Points. Google answers questions, it sometimes gets those questions wrong, but it's getting better. I'm not that worried about the odd wrong answer because that's a consequence of fledgling deep learning software. Things will get better. Of course, some idiot's going to listen to Google one time, and do something disastrous with the "advice" and then they might have to tone it down a bit, but I for one welcome ou…

I'd rather see the media banned from telling people who to vote for than see a ban on all polling. But something like that would be impossible to enforce given all publications / news networks have a political bias.

Re: Who'll be the next president – Google Search

#55

Post by 1_player » Tue, Jun 23, 2015, 11:37 AM UTC

mrweasel wrote: post #48

adventured wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no correlation between having a lot of parties and a sound, well functioning political system. See: Italy, and a dozen other examples from Europe over the last 70 years If your culture is rotten, your politics will be rotten, regardless of whether you have 2, 5, 27 parties.

>There's no correlation between having a lot of parties and a sound, well functioning political system. Absolutely true, but it is remarkable that the Danes had 10 parties to choose from at our election for parliament last week and the US is supposed to be able feel represented by only two parties. Denmark is pretty much as homogeneous a society as it is possible to be in a modern world and yet we have 10 parties, gr…

> Denmark is pretty much as heterogeneously a society

I think you mean homogeneous.

Re: Who'll be the next president – Google Search

#56

Post by rayiner » Tue, Jun 23, 2015, 11:37 AM UTC

MrDosu wrote: post #21

"Because the other side doesn't have a viable candidate" Glorious two party system, how is that even remotely called democracy by anyone?

What about the results of the two party system make you think it hinders democracy? Bearing in mind that the average voter is basically my mom?

We have pretty much exactly the government my mom wants. Harsh drug laws, extreme jail sentences, generous social security, lots of regulatory protections, etc. Probably the only light between her and Obama is she dislikes his foreign policy (she's from a Muslim country, which makes her exceptional there) and dislikes the trend towards legalized gay marriage and weed (positions well represented by the republicans, who she sometimes wants to vote for). Her biggest disagreements are with laws that derive from Supreme Court dictates (e.g. free speech protections).

These positions derive from an coherent worldview--one that has a low opinion of individual humans and values authority and the idea that people need to be told what to do for society to function smoothly (a common viewpoint not just here but across Asia).

So again, what about democracy in the U.S. isn't working? We have pretty much exactly the kind of government you'd expect given the views of our voters.

Re: Who'll be the next president – Google Search

#57

Post by mrweasel » Tue, Jun 23, 2015, 11:38 AM UTC

1_player wrote: post #55

mrweasel wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>There's no correlation between having a lot of parties and a sound, well functioning political system. Absolutely true, but it is remarkable that the Danes had 10 parties to choose from at our election for parliament last week and the US is supposed to be able feel represented by only two parties. Denmark is pretty much as homogeneous a society as it is possible to be in a modern world and yet we have 10 parties, gr…

> Denmark is pretty much as heterogeneously a society I think you mean homogeneous.

Ooh, yeah of cause, thanks.

Re: Who'll be the next president – Google Search

#58

Post by decafbad » Tue, Jun 23, 2015, 11:42 AM UTC

Which country?

Re: Who'll be the next president – Google Search

#59

Post by briandear » Tue, Jun 23, 2015, 11:49 AM UTC

ck2 wrote: post #51

joelrunyon wrote: post #3

Another unintended consequence of Google doing the things that Google recommends you don't do (in this case, scraping sites). Can we talk about how terrible a piece of pro-hillary propaganda that was? Namely this: > America is ready for the leadership of a Hillary Clinton. A new history will be made when she becomes the leader of the free world. The world of women everywhere will change Sure, this sounds very reminis…

Hillary will be president for one reason. Do you really want a third Bush in the White House for a third Iraq war? Alternatively, do you really want a Bush picking the next two or three Supreme Court judges? It would set back the country into the 1960s. Voting rights, equality, access to abortion. All rolled back to 1960s with an imbalance of power in the supreme court.

Really? Set the country back to the 1960s? You also actually think Bush is going to be the nominee? You don't seem to know much about Republicans if you think that. As far as the 1960s goes, the economic picture was much better then than it has been over the past 8 years. The JFK tax cuts caused a decade of prosperity; the middle class was much stronger, wage growth was steady. What we have now is a generalized malaise. If you're suggesting some kind of war on women malarcky, ask yourself why in Hilary's State Department and in Obama's White House do women still make 70% of what men make? These anti-republican memes are getting a bit stupid. Remember Hilary supported the Iraq War, the Libyan War (which did not even get Congressional approval as was required under the War Powers Act.) Hilary also strongly supports and supported the Patriot Act and warrantless NSA surveillance of Americans. Her only accomplishments as Secretary of State were aggrevation of Russian relations, the loss of American allies Libya and Egypt to Muslim extremists, more nonsense in Syria as well as facilitating the failure of Iran's Green Revoluion. She and Obama also a let the Pakistani doctor who provided the Bin Laden tip to be captured, imprissoned and tortured by the Pakistanis as a reward for his helping the U.S. She also racked up a lot of frequent flyer miles. The woman has zero accomplishments, either for woman or anyone else. She has never worked as a chief executive of anything, she has barely ever had a real job; she's a lifetime political hack and the U.S. is worse for having her in the national dialog. Remember it was Rand Paul that fought the NSA and Rand Paul that has promoted the end of civil asset forfeiture and he has also called for the ending of racist sentencing guidelines as wel as decriminalization of drugs. Hilary represents a totalitarian Democrat plantation owner. She's a horrible choice for the school board, let alone President of the United States. She's an evil snake and anyone who supports her is either mentally ill or profoundly ignorant or just brainwashed. If she cared about women she wouldn't have defended a child rapist. She also wouldn't have defended Bill Clinton amongst multiple credible allegations of rape, harassment and other misconduct. She also would have declared Boko Haram a terror group when she had the chance. I could go on for days; the point is that Hilary Clinton deserves to be in jail or scrubbing toilets in Siberia. I didn't even touch upon the Clinton Foundation "donations" from foreign governments while she was Secratary of State. Or the email servers. Or the utter lack of transparency she has demonstrated over her long illustrious career as a leech suckling upon the blood of the American people. I'd vote for Sheila Jackson Lee or even Michael Jackson before I'd vote for Hilary.

Re: Who'll be the next president – Google Search

#60

Post by briandear » Tue, Jun 23, 2015, 11:52 AM UTC

joelrunyon wrote: post #16

k-mcgrady wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Voting on party scares me - especially in a system where there are only two.

Sorry - that also scares me. What is even worse (in my opinion) is people voting on candidates based on last names (which seems to be the trend lately) - especially when that's seen or used as a positive aspect.

Or voting against candidates based on their last names. Let's be intellectually consistent here..