161–170 of 558 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I made the jump to Fastmail.com and couldn't be happier. The UI is very snappy (much faster than Gmail's), the actual notifications and delivery is faster, and it's a better experience overall, for me. Plus, Google doesn't get to see my mail any more. Ditto for Firefox vs Chrome.
Did you consider protonmail? If so, why fastmail?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
HN comments have a tendency to obsess about almost irrelevant details. Exact, precise dictionary definitions of words clearly being used in context to mean something not exact matching the dictionary. Arguments over whether passing a pointer counts as pass by value or pass by reference. Taking metaphors and going off on numerical tangents that don't add anything to the meaning or discussion. HN comments suffer from t…
Do you consider the difference between a mosquito and a goose to be "almost irrelevant"?
Overall, super happy with DDG.
People are conditioned to think Search has to work online. This was true when Google was created. No one had the processing or memory available on their desktop to search an entire index of the "useful" web. Not anymore. How large is a "useful" index of the web today? And can it fit on your laptop? The answer is yes. Can the entire thing be queried fast? The answer is yes. As an example take the entire stackexchange…
Relevant discussion: "Wallabag: a self-hostable application for saving web pages" | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14686882 (July 2017)
I've been using DDG as my primary search for about 2 years now, it rarely ever falls short for me. When it does, it's usually related to some type of image search I'm doing, I think google still has nicer tools for that. Overall, super happy with DDG.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with parent, it's not just a metaphor but a wildly inaccurate guess that makes the reader think duckduckgo is more irrelevant than it really is. > That was one of the most HN comments I've ever read. What does this mean?
HN has a reputation among some[who?][weasel words] as a place where many commenters are some combination of pedantic, overly literal and out of touch with mainstream culture. Taking this metaphor to pieces would seem to check the first 2 boxes pretty neatly.
But how good can a search engine be if it does not track its humans, and therefore cannot use browsing / search history as contextual clues for query ranking / semantics ? It might be very good. But can such a system compete with one that does use search history as context?
However, I do get your point. Without that extra context, the search results can only ever only be so good.
"Google would be an elephant while DuckDuckGo is a mosquito (this is not to emphasize; I’m actually making things better for DuckDuckGo)." Why would this guy go out of his way to say this metaphor is actually literally informative and generous towards DuckDuckGo while apparently having exerted no mental effort and being incorrect by orders of magnitude on his own data? If you're most generous to the writer, you get 1…
So a... duck? ;-)
[0] http://www.metzerfarms.com/DuckBreedComparison.cfm the most common duck (mallard) is 0.72–1.58 kg, the most common farm duck is 2-2.5 kg, but certain breeds are close to the right interval.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_heaviest_land_mammals
[2] https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4446112/search-for-inter...
[3] http://www.akc.org/content/dog-care/articles/breed-weight-ch...
People are conditioned to think Search has to work online. This was true when Google was created. No one had the processing or memory available on their desktop to search an entire index of the "useful" web. Not anymore. How large is a "useful" index of the web today? And can it fit on your laptop? The answer is yes. Can the entire thing be queried fast? The answer is yes. As an example take the entire stackexchange…
>That's an rough approximation of all known human knowledge.
Are you taking the piss?