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

US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

storage.courtlistener.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

461–470 of 1001 posts

Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

#461

Post by hammock »

mondrian wrote: post #401
dantheman wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Throughout history there are very few monopolies and they don't normally last that long; that is unless they get are granted special privileges by the government.

Concentration is the default in an unregulated environment. Sure pure monopolies with 100% market control are rare but concentration is rampant. A handful of companies dominating tech, airlines, banks, media.

Concentration is not monopoly, and furthermore your comment does not begin to address the critical part of parent’s comment : “does not last very long”

Inequality at a point in time , and over time , is not nearly as bad if the winners keep rotating

Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

#462

Post by beagle3 »

ldjkfkdsjnv wrote: post #318
beagle3 wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Juergen Schmidhuber and his students came up with much of the basic NN elements, such as RNN, LSTM and others without behemoth resources (and several years earlier). Ttbomk, the one thing they DIDN’T come up with was the transformer; however it is very likely someone would have within a 5-10 year time frame.

I well aware of Schmidhuber, still the scaling of the compute was critical. The reason Schmidhuber didnt go all the way is still scaling/capital, which accrues to monopolies who can afford wildly speculative research. Also, LSTM, RNN, etc, while effective for their time, were dead ends.

compute was critical, but compute was happening anyway. I fail to say why you are convinced that there would not be transformers.

Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

#463

Post by everforward »

fallingknife wrote: post #394
everforward wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A potentially shocking amount depending on the desired freshness if the bot isn’t custom tailored per site. I worked at a job posting site and Googlebot would nearly take down our search infrastructure because it crawled jobs via searching rather than the index. Bots are typically tuned to work with generic sites over crawling efficiently.

Where is the cost coming from? Wouldn't a crawler mostly just accessing cached static assets served by CDN? And what do you mean by your search infrastructure? Are you talking about elasticsearch or some equivalent?

No, in our case they were indexing job posts by sending search requests. Ie instead of pulling down the JSON files of jobs, they would search for them by sending stuff like “New York City, New York software engineer” to our search. Generally not cached because the searches weren’t something humans would search for (they’d use the location drop down).

I didn’t work on search, but yeah, something like Elasticsearch. Googlebot was a majority of our search traffic at times.

Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

#464

Post by sakoht »

Currently most websites have a snip of code that posts to Google when a visitor arrives. The cookie there is linked to an identity and later used to push ads, and metrics for the site user. It seems like this is the thing to make broadly available. Anyone with $ can index the web. But nobody can get every websites to update to post to 2+ destinations. Multiple companies should be able to listen to that feed, and then be responsible for tracking and indexing on their own.

Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

#465

Post by root_axis »

ardit33 wrote: post #444
0xbadcafebee wrote: post #367

I'm not sure people understand what the consequences of taking away Google's ad revenue is. If a large enough bank goes under, it takes out not just the bank, but huge sectors of the economy, affecting many more businesses and jobs. That's why the government bailed out the banks when they failed. The same will happen when Google loses its ad revenue. Google is an ad company. By opening up all its trade secret data, i…

This is juvenile thinking... none of them will go away. They can be independent services themselves, and be pretty profitable at it. The upshoot is if they are independent, they will be forced to compete fairly with other services. Which, does increase competition and choice.

Most would go away and be replaced by another monopolist. Likely Microsoft or Apple.

Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

#466

Post by worik »

0xbadcafebee wrote: post #367

I'm not sure people understand what the consequences of taking away Google's ad revenue is. If a large enough bank goes under, it takes out not just the bank, but huge sectors of the economy, affecting many more businesses and jobs. That's why the government bailed out the banks when they failed. The same will happen when Google loses its ad revenue. Google is an ad company. By opening up all its trade secret data, i…

Yes please

The existence of none of those services depend on Google, and Google's cross subsidisation distorts the environment dreadfully

Worse it puts Google at the centre of so many data flows, and now we realise we do not want a single index of all data, it is positively destructive

Good riddance Google.

Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

#467

Post by dismalaf »

ezfe wrote: post #457
dismalaf wrote: post #439

Not sure a VC firm with a vested interest in Google failing should be allowed to have an opinion here... I always thought the point of the government breaking up monopolies was to prevent anti-competitive behaviour, not simply to punish companies for being too successful. If we want to talk about what's best for the economy and startups, there's a bunch of large companies that could be broken up for the benefit of so…

There are two ways to remedy an anti competitive monopoly: Behavioral remedies where the government gets involved with google’s business and maintains ongoing control to ensure they behave. Structural remedies where the government separates the company into parts and then-crucially-leaves them alone for the most part. The “ideal” solution is to magically stop Google from being anticompetitive but that is unrealistic.…

Except no one is providing much evidence that Google is anti-competitive. It's more like they're simply too good at competing so competitors want to knee-cap them...

Exhibit A: Bing's top search query is "google".

Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

#468

Post by cyberax »

dantheman wrote: post #392
mondrian wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because everyone worships Thiel's "competition is for losers" and dreams of being a monopoly. Monopolies being the logical outcome of a deregulated environment, for which these companies lobby.

Throughout history there are very few monopolies and they don't normally last that long; that is unless they get are granted special privileges by the government.

> Throughout history there are very few monopolies and they don't normally last that long

That's completely incorrect. Historically, monopolies were pretty long-lived. So much that they were often written into the legal codes.

It's only fairly recently that the pace of innovation picked up so much, that monopolies not really die per se, but just become irrelevant.

Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

#469

Post by worik »

wpm wrote: post #377
0xbadcafebee wrote: post #367

I'm not sure people understand what the consequences of taking away Google's ad revenue is. If a large enough bank goes under, it takes out not just the bank, but huge sectors of the economy, affecting many more businesses and jobs. That's why the government bailed out the banks when they failed. The same will happen when Google loses its ad revenue. Google is an ad company. By opening up all its trade secret data, i…

Too big to fail means too big to exist. Google et. al should never have been allowed to get this large, same as those banks. Better late than never.

> Too big to fail means too big to exist. Google et. al should never have been allowed to get this large

I agree

But placing limits on private property accumulation is a controversial idea

But it is an idea who's time must come, or we face a dreadful future of robber barrons and peons

Re: US vs. Google amicus curiae brief of Y Combinator in support of plaintiffs [pdf]

#470

Post by worik »

nativeit wrote: post #449
hamilyon2 wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Android in this list stands out. If Android goes away, I am not sure who is there to pick up The OS of the world, not IOS, certainly, but who? All else, good riddance. More competition will make better products.

A non-profit collective of device manufacturers and software developers could probably create a very effective and potent steward for Android's long-term development. But I wouldn't hold my breath.

Linux?
Post reply on HN