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

Google is dead. Where do we go now?

circusscientist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

761–770 of 873 posts

Re: Google is dead. Where do we go now?

#761

Post by geysersam »

acka wrote: post #633
geysersam wrote: post #584

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If everybody bought only what they needed and ignored all the advertisements, our present level of economic activity would plunge. Why would it plunge instead of re-focusing on things that are intrinsically important?

> Why would it plunge instead of re-focusing on things that are intrinsically important? Because a lot of the economy is focused on creating and maintaining a surplus[1]: make people buy things that they don't really need, make them discard and replace things that they've been convinced are no longer worth it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus%3A_Terrorized_into_Bei...

That's the current state yes. But that doesn't mean it's the only possible state. If that wasteful consumption disappear, would anyone be worse off? Hardly. But it would free up capacity to do more actually useful and valuable things. Sounds like a win to me.

Re: Google is dead. Where do we go now?

#762

Post by aj_hackman »

tuesdaynight wrote: post #707
xbmcuser wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of her friends are probably women. Try making an account with an obvious female name and you will see a marked difference on most social platforms I am saying this as a guy we really don't understand the world women live in online or offline.

It's really telling how most replies to your message are about "sexual market" or online dating. That's all some men can think of when talking about women online.

It's almost as if we desire each other.

Re: Google is dead. Where do we go now?

#763

Post by ExtraRoulette »

hinkley wrote: post #260
mikepurvis wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely this. I recently got a nice photo taken with my kids and for the first time I... didn't post it on Facebook. I sent it to my family group chat. Yesterday I posted on Facebook for the first time in months and it was about the power being out for an hour in the ice storm. I haven't posted travel photos to FB in years. I'm mostly still on FB at all for the acquaintance-level connections to things like neighbo…

One of the things I hope will come from the Trough of Disillusionment in cloud computing will be families running redundant file servers hosting the family photos instead of doing everything on IG. Your three tech savvy family members should all have redundant copies of the photos of memaw’s wedding and Uncle Jim when he was 2 and looked exactly like your cousin’s second kid. I don’t need to see those. Your stalker e…

I'm working on it! I have a little NUC that I'm learning Linux (Is that the proper term?) on. I plan to self host a few services for myself and host family photos on it someday.

I'm going through a "Deep, Vast, Trough of Learning" at the moment :>

Re: Google is dead. Where do we go now?

#764

Post by ileonichwiesz »

cookiengineer wrote: post #278
nostrademons wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my anecdotal experience, it's moved to private, trust-based channels: iMessage, WhatsApp, email, face-to-face interactions. Our 30-year bender of putting our lives online and blurring the public and the private has finally ended: people don't want to be online, don't trust social media, don't really trust any media, and are living simple local lives with a small circle of friends that they get together with regula…

I had a very interesting discussion with a friend today, where I was talking to her about the /r/golang thread about Rob Pike's comments to OpenAI and how the thread was full of bots talking with other bots. No idea why the density of bots was so high in that thread, it was kind of absurd to see. Then she said: "I know nobody that comments on online forums. Nobody would ever comment to strangers on the internet. It's…

I think some of this is caused by the non-obvious mechanisms of how interactions on these platforms work.

When you replied to a thread on a phpbb forum (or when you reply to this HN thread), your reply „lived” in that thread, on that forum, and that was that. The algorithm wouldn’t show that reply to your dad.

I remember liking a comment on Facebook years ago, and being horrified when some of my friends and family got a „John liked this comment, join the discussion!” notification served straight onto their timelines, completely out of context. I felt spied on. I thought I was interacting with a funny stranger, but it turned out that that tiny interaction would be recorded and rebroadcast to whomever, without my knowledge.

Similarly, commenting on a youtube video was a much different experience when your youtube account wasn’t linked to all your personal information.

If you comment on a social media post, what’s going to happen? How sure are you that that comment, however innocuous it may seem now, won’t be dredged up 8 years by a prospective employer? Even if not, your like or comment it’s still a valuable data point that you’re giving to Zuckerberg or similar. Every smallest interaction enriches some of the worst people in the industry, if not in the world.

The way I speak, the tone I use, the mannerisms I employ, they all change depending on the room I’m in and on the people I’m speaking to - but on modern social media, you can never be sure who your audience is. It’s safer to stay quiet and passive.

Re: Google is dead. Where do we go now?

#765

Post by computerthings »

bambax wrote: post #638
laszlojamf wrote: post #631

Earlier quoted context omitted.

funny story: I got the wife of a friend to install tinder, a couple of years back when I was dating. I was having a hard time getting matches, so I figured I'd see how the other side lives. She created an empty profile, with a blurry hippopotamus as a profile picture, and a single letter as name. Just "H". For hippopotamus. No bio. Within five minutes she was matching with every other guy she swiped right on. Which w…

You can try creating a profile as a woman. I did, five years ago, on a site that advertised itself as being dedicated to "affairs" between married people. All I said was I was 20, was red haired, and open minded. Nothing more, and no photo. Indeed, within a couple of minutes there were guys asking me if I liked to be whipped while handcuffed to a radiator, and offered to send me dick picks if I sent naked photos firs…

[dead]

Re: Google is dead. Where do we go now?

#766

Post by throwaway173738 »

tuesdaynight wrote: post #707
xbmcuser wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of her friends are probably women. Try making an account with an obvious female name and you will see a marked difference on most social platforms I am saying this as a guy we really don't understand the world women live in online or offline.

It's really telling how most replies to your message are about "sexual market" or online dating. That's all some men can think of when talking about women online.

When other men post about that, all I hear is a desperate cry for help.

Re: Google is dead. Where do we go now?

#767

Post by hinkley »

DrewADesign wrote: post #388
hinkley wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the things I hope will come from the Trough of Disillusionment in cloud computing will be families running redundant file servers hosting the family photos instead of doing everything on IG. Your three tech savvy family members should all have redundant copies of the photos of memaw’s wedding and Uncle Jim when he was 2 and looked exactly like your cousin’s second kid. I don’t need to see those. Your stalker e…

My very vibes-based take is that setting up home servers is the dad jeans of tech hobbies. It's kind of arresting how bewildered many young people are when confronted with anything below the UI layer. I think peak tech savviness happened a bit younger than me: maybe mid-late millennial. After that you start getting into the iPad-from-birth generation for whom tech was rarely a challenge. Tech savviness among young fo…

Gamers are the ones building PCs by hand. They have the skills, it’s a matter of motivation.

Re: Google is dead. Where do we go now?

#768

Post by hinkley »

AtlasBarfed wrote: post #538
DrewADesign wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My very vibes-based take is that setting up home servers is the dad jeans of tech hobbies. It's kind of arresting how bewildered many young people are when confronted with anything below the UI layer. I think peak tech savviness happened a bit younger than me: maybe mid-late millennial. After that you start getting into the iPad-from-birth generation for whom tech was rarely a challenge. Tech savviness among young fo…

We still need a lot of plug and Play with home servers. In theory, AI should be good at helping building interfaces between cloud backups and home server apps. Because AI should be good at apis. In theory

I’d like a turnkey k3s and a 10” rack designed for consumers. Set up to host your Minecraft server, store your media, and be incrementally upgradeable.

Re: Google is dead. Where do we go now?

#769

Post by hinkley »

glitchcrab wrote: post #658
Dylan16807 wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For $125, which is also about the price of one year of cloud storage, you can get a hard drive big enough to store half a million photos and also back up a million photos. It probably won't ever go over $200. And the hardware to serve that hard drive is somewhere between free and another hundred.

Sure, but then you're putting all your eggs in one basket (hard drive). If you really want to divest yourself of the cloud then you need to set things up in a redundant and fault-tolerant fashion. And at that point the outlay is much more than 'just a hard drive'.

That was already covered in my top level comment though. Geographic redundancy not local mirroring.

Re: Google is dead. Where do we go now?

#770

Post by baobun »

collaborative wrote: post #665
LunaSea wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't the K shape only affect targeting of affluent users that are desirable to luxury brands?

It affects everyone. It's always been the case, also in traditional advertising. As soon as a company gets rich it defaults to massive marketing (at a loss) to stay on top and drown the underdogs. That's why I think marketing spend should be capped by revenue by law. The current system stiffles competition

I lke it. It would be wonderful if the cap was gradually reduced to 0.
Post reply on HN