311–320 of 332 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you give an example query and the page it should return?
Sure. Searching M1104273380R should return https://wms.lroc.asu.edu/lroc/view_lroc/LRO-L-LROC-2-EDR-V1.... and this paper: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature19829 . Interestingly, when I tried this just now, I did get the paper as a result. I could swear I tried this same search yesterday and had zero results.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps you are simply not the target audience any longer ... I mean, if they can make billions by serving 99% of people, why would they spend billions on making the remaining 1% happy?
One would think that given the purported depth and breadth of our economic system, it would be possible for that system to address all audiences instead of just catering to the most common denominator. But we've been on a race to the bottom in most sectors for a long time now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you give an example query and the page it should return?
Sure. Searching M1104273380R should return https://wms.lroc.asu.edu/lroc/view_lroc/LRO-L-LROC-2-EDR-V1.... and this paper: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature19829 . Interestingly, when I tried this just now, I did get the paper as a result. I could swear I tried this same search yesterday and had zero results.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Wikipedia, the highest quality curated human-readable information repository 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.
Highest quality !== great quality Wikipedia suffers from massive bias and subjectivity issues, and also from accuracy problems. Yet, all the attempts to do better fizzled out so far, and most non-niche knowledge and information repositories have the same or worse issues.
If we look back at history, many of the earliest written works were published in this way, as a philosophical debate between different fictional characters.
However it seems increasingly difficult to find good online debate with several sides of an issue. People tend to silo themselves into their own bubbles, and denounce any platform who even dares to let an opponent speak his mind. I remember just a decade ago where you'd find all opinions on the spectrum on the same message boards. Now, people prefer to shelter themselves instead.
This is the Internet version of the tragedy of the commons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons So many people and groups want to profit with as little effort as possible that the commons (freely available data, open APIs, FLOSS software, etc.) is being overrun with little to no regard for the long term effects. Data can be copied endlessly, but it has to be generated the first time and updated or el…
In the history of humanity, intellectual property is a relatively recent phenomenon. A lot of technology and culture was built without such “protection”. I sometimes wonder how recent history would have played out without copyrights and patents.
Now that we're all equals, the rich and powerful don't have to do any such things anymore.
What is the motivation of anyone to make a website at this point? I don't see it. I've not seen very much discussion about the issues these LLMs are going to cause, this article is sort of talking about it - twitter and wikipedia could restrict their content, but - what about the millions of webmasters who ultimately created what the web is today? What is the motivation of anyone to really create content any more, ap…
Making websites to sell stuff and services for example, ie a business. You'll find some of the best information on websites that are a business, because it's in their direct monetary interest to get you that information. As opposed to ad-supported websites.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Google is dead man walking, unless something very substantial changes. Beyond search, they are controlling the Android ecosystem. Your predictions may be immature.
Android being open source means that any competitor can take it and run with it. Tbh, the main issue with that is the staffing required in terms of software engineers, but we’re Google to make the wrong move, I imagine Samsung would waste little time.
The main reason competitors don't take off (e.g. Tizen) is the chicken/egg problem of the Google Play Store (which can't be shipped without Android).
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They very much killed the golden goose. It's a real failure to think in terms of systems. Google relies on a healthy open web, yet as arguably the biggest single influencer of the web it has completely failed to maintain that let alone improve it.
This is basically the premise of "The Age of PageRank is Over" blog post that is now sort of a Kagi manifesto. https://blog.kagi.com/age-pagerank-over