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

You Will Not Understand This

stanleylieber.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 265 posts

Re: You Will Not Understand This

#51

Post by qualitytime »

jdietrich wrote: post #36

>Search quality is no longer a core competency of Google, the Internet’s premiere search engine. For example: Two people type the same search string, each receives different results. While I sympathise with the general anti-social-media stance, it's clear from this phrase that OP does not understand the most basic elements of how internet services function at scale. Of course Google serves different results to differ…

While I sympathise with your vote-for-mediocrity, it's clear you don't understand Google et al. with their army of A* engineers and $uit$.

You sir are the product. By constantly telling you are the median, you shall become the median.

More Median People === More Profit$

Great article. "You Will Not Understand This." how appropiate.

Re: You Will Not Understand This

#52

Post by KozmoNau7 »

jdietrich wrote: post #36

>Search quality is no longer a core competency of Google, the Internet’s premiere search engine. For example: Two people type the same search string, each receives different results. While I sympathise with the general anti-social-media stance, it's clear from this phrase that OP does not understand the most basic elements of how internet services function at scale. Of course Google serves different results to differ…

I can't find any sources for why Gmail has supposedly "broken" e-mail for "everyone in the world". Do you know what he's referring to?

Re: You Will Not Understand This

#53

Post by nludd »

jdietrich wrote: post #36

>Search quality is no longer a core competency of Google, the Internet’s premiere search engine. For example: Two people type the same search string, each receives different results. While I sympathise with the general anti-social-media stance, it's clear from this phrase that OP does not understand the most basic elements of how internet services function at scale. Of course Google serves different results to differ…

>If I search for "takeaway pizza", I'm going to be pretty annoyed if the results are generated using PageRank alone, with no weighting for local relevance.

Google "takeaway pizza [place of residence]".

>If an American searches for "cricket", they almost certainly mean the cellular provider or the insect rather than the sport

Google "cricket provider" or "cricket insect".

>if a British person makes the same search, the odds are reversed.

Google "cricket sport".

"We will track your every query, movement, voice command, and whatever other behavioural data we can get our hands on, put it in a gargantuan centralized database, store it for as long as we can (practically forever) and have trillion-dollar artificial intelligence munch on it so you can avoid using accurate search queries" is a ridiculous value proposition.

Re: You Will Not Understand This

#54

Post by sweezyjeezy »

nludd wrote: post #53
jdietrich wrote: post #36

>Search quality is no longer a core competency of Google, the Internet’s premiere search engine. For example: Two people type the same search string, each receives different results. While I sympathise with the general anti-social-media stance, it's clear from this phrase that OP does not understand the most basic elements of how internet services function at scale. Of course Google serves different results to differ…

>If I search for "takeaway pizza", I'm going to be pretty annoyed if the results are generated using PageRank alone, with no weighting for local relevance. Google "takeaway pizza [place of residence]". >If an American searches for "cricket", they almost certainly mean the cellular provider or the insect rather than the sport Google "cricket provider" or "cricket insect". >if a British person makes the same search, th…

For you. Maybe not for the median user though.

Re: You Will Not Understand This

#55

Post by chii »

sametmax wrote: post #39
ryandrake wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The gmail account is a google acount. Yea, this is an irritating trend, not confined to Google. It's getting harder and harder to have separate accounts and separate identities (or, god forbid, no identity) across services anymore. BIG BUTTON: "LOG IN WITH FACEBOOK!!!" Small, gray 6pt text: "Create an account with us." How about no? How about neither? I just want to browse the web. I don't want a relationship with…

Some of the services I make have "private urls" and/or a cookie containing a token to auto-login you so you can use it without an account. But it works only if: - the data are not very sensitive. It's very easy to mess with. - people are tech savvy enough to understand what a URL is or never get in a situation where they don't have the cookie - your service is too small to attract spammers - you can setup a decent sy…

I don't get why no service use the email link to login method. It already exists, but is marketed as 'forgot password'.

Re: You Will Not Understand This

#56

Post by ggm »

I just exited. I didn't bleat about it. Maybe I should have ranted, but somehow I did not judge that as necessary or appropriate. Either you "get it" and don't need to be harangued, or you are embedded and a harangue is just hater gotta hate.

So I just stopped. Three months ago. Not missing it.

Re: You Will Not Understand This

#57

Post by KozmoNau7 »

sametmax wrote: post #6
13of40 wrote: post #2

"Fuck you forever for breaking e-mail for everyone in the world." Did, uh, anyone else understand that bit?

My take would be: - now it's quite impossible to administrate your own email servers. Anti-spam measures are very effective (and enjoyable for us as users), but so paranoid that being part of the few select nodes that don't have their emails marked as spam (or are even propagated at all) is a full time job. - gmail dicthed IMAP in favor of their own API. Pluging an IMAP client into your email account requires to dig…

> gmail dicthed IMAP in favor of their own API. Pluging an IMAP client into your email account requires to dig inside your account security settings and change several obscure values with scary names and warnings. Sometime it even doesn't work, and then you do it again later, and it works for no reason. A non tech saavy user will never succeed in doing that, and hence everybody will use the web base version.

I went to the settings page, selected "enable IMAP" and used the values in the provided link to set up my Gmail as an IMAP account in Thunderbird. No messing around with account security, no "obscure values" to change.

I didn't even have to generate an app-specific password (I use 2FA), because Thunderbird understands the authentication page request.

> I had "burn after reading" documents that I could never open because of this.

Why were those documents ever on an Internet-connected device?

> I just wanted emails when I open my first gmail account. Not that.

Honestly, if you didn't know back then that Google was primarily an advertising company, and that they would scan your emails to generate targeted ads, you obviously weren't following along, which seems weird considering your obvious focus on security on privacy.

I'm getting ready to migrate away from Gmail myself (I'll keep it running unused as my Google account), mostly so I can have my own domain under my own control.

Re: You Will Not Understand This

#58

Post by zaarn »

I haven't used Facebook in well over a decade and I'm not even 25 years old yet. I don't think I missed out on much. (Though Facebook tried to get me back in not too long ago by claiming somebody was hacking my account which I had deleted... they also demanded a passport)

Re: You Will Not Understand This

#59

Post by netsharc »

nludd wrote: post #53
jdietrich wrote: post #36

>Search quality is no longer a core competency of Google, the Internet’s premiere search engine. For example: Two people type the same search string, each receives different results. While I sympathise with the general anti-social-media stance, it's clear from this phrase that OP does not understand the most basic elements of how internet services function at scale. Of course Google serves different results to differ…

>If I search for "takeaway pizza", I'm going to be pretty annoyed if the results are generated using PageRank alone, with no weighting for local relevance. Google "takeaway pizza [place of residence]". >If an American searches for "cricket", they almost certainly mean the cellular provider or the insect rather than the sport Google "cricket provider" or "cricket insect". >if a British person makes the same search, th…

Your queries would work, but Google wants to be like the secretary in the office. If you ask your secretary "I want some pizza", he would not say "Well this pizza place is the most popular in the world, it's located in Rome.", he would tell you options close to your area.

Re: You Will Not Understand This

#60

Post by KozmoNau7 »

gcb0 wrote: post #17
13of40 wrote: post #2

"Fuck you forever for breaking e-mail for everyone in the world." Did, uh, anyone else understand that bit?

Yes. Despite the technical problems (e.g. pulling out dmarc on the last second to make others look bad), it taught everyone to reply on top. > Did, uh, anyone else understand that bit?

Outlook already did that, since basically forever.

> it taught everyone to reply on top.

Post reply on HN