191–200 of 332 posts
Which means we return to late '90s and early 2000s situation when there were no behemoths hoarding data and knowledge and there were many specialized websites. I am happy with checking tech news on HN, checking stuff about cars on a car website, read about photography on a photography website and so on, instead of searching countless Facebook groups and subreddits.
This is Google's inability to innovate. Google stated goal was the "organize the world's information". Nevertheless, they didn't come up with Wikipedia, the highest quality curated human-readable information repository. They also didn't come up with ChatGPT, arguably the first LLM good enough that can perform non trivial tasks of data recall and organization. Google had early success with search. Then decided to ceme…
>Nevertheless, they didn't come up with Wikipedia, the highest quality curated human-readable information repository. Wikipedia was good before the culture wars got to it.
This is Google's inability to innovate. Google stated goal was the "organize the world's information". Nevertheless, they didn't come up with Wikipedia, the highest quality curated human-readable information repository. They also didn't come up with ChatGPT, arguably the first LLM good enough that can perform non trivial tasks of data recall and organization. Google had early success with search. Then decided to ceme…
I have some doubts about the quality of Wikipedia content. Everything that can be politicised is politicised , everything that can be played in order for someone to advance his/her plans or point of view is played.
Apart from bad faith, some article lack relevant info or contain errors due the volunteer nature of it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can't remember exactly where I saw it, but last number I saw said that Google makes ~$12 a year per user. Which begs the question... why have they not atleast tried a "Google Premium". Fuck it, I'd pay $15 a year to have a Google search that puts as much effort into finding me the shit I actually want as Google does today in serving me BS ads I never pay attention to.
First thought is that it's the most profitable users who would choose adless. The ads industry would not like their reach to be limited to those not paying for premium search.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Nevertheless, they didn't come up with Wikipedia, the highest quality curated human-readable information repository. Wikipedia was good before the culture wars got to it.
Could you elaborate or provide examples? I have never seen what you're describing on Wikipedia.
Google has lots of smart employees, why can't they just "fix" search?
This is Google's inability to innovate. Google stated goal was the "organize the world's information". Nevertheless, they didn't come up with Wikipedia, the highest quality curated human-readable information repository. They also didn't come up with ChatGPT, arguably the first LLM good enough that can perform non trivial tasks of data recall and organization. Google had early success with search. Then decided to ceme…
Google's money is in ads, not search. I'm still curious how they're going to properly monetise ChatGPT at scale. I can't wait for the AI ads...
The funny thing is the site which should have been removed like the of Stackoverflow spam clones, or sites like Canva and Pinterest that make thousands of similar looking pages with slightly different heading are still allowed and rank on Google. Also hate the top 10 pages whenever you search the best something, like best domain name registrar. I don't want to read a spam blog post with affiliate links, I wish google…
The moment I saw the term "SEO" it was like a stopwatch ticked on until search was dead. It used to be frowned upon to do little tricks, like keywords in a tiny, transparent font picked up by crawlers, but not seen by users. When gaming search engines became a profession, the end of search appeared on the horizon. Guess we're headed back to web rings and link indexes (which will be consolidated, heavily monetized, an…
Unfortunately, there's no going back - the closest we can get is BBS-via-SSH. The entire landline phone infrastructure is crumbling around us (or in many cases, completely gone). Voice calls are packet-switched now, rather than circuit-switched as in the past. The upshot is, fancy modulation techniques that made full-duplex 33.6k possible over voice-grade connections aren't going to work, and even good old Bell 103 (300 baud) may end up being problematic.
I'm not sure I can even get new landline phone service, and if so, it's going to be expensive - and the wire plant is an unmaintained mess. When I got my folks off their landline and onto VoIP some years back, their old landline had so much hum it was nearly unusable. Once the inside wiring was disconnected from the landline and connected to an ATA, the hum was gone. It wasn't our wiring.
Lots of smart people making very bad products that get in the way of other smart people making good products. It’s shocking to look at the wreckage of their decades of poor decision-making.