3 ms·
No, no, no. 1. Google is coming out with a new product called Google Squared. It's related to searching data sets. 2. Wolfram is coming out with a new product
by zackattack 17y ago
No, no, no.
1. Google is coming out with a new product called Google Squared. It's related to searching data sets.
2. Wolfram is coming out with a new product called Wolfram Alpha. It's related to searching data sets.
3. rms observed that #1->product and #2->product are related, and if their technology doesn't explicitly overlap, WA might be a good candidate for acquisition in order to broaden Google's hold on searching data sets.
4. You issued a non-sequitur. It's not related to the thread at hand, and I'm not even sure why Google would even want Loopt. (Please explain your rationale why Google would want Loopt, cuz I don't get it, but know that explaining it won't strengthen your argument against rms).
5. Sparknotes Version-- Your argument is this:
Google didn't license Y's technology.
Y's technology is from a powerful company
*Therefore, Google won't license X's technology, since X is a powerful company.
6. What you're trying to say is that Google won't necessarily go around trying to license technology from every company that has intersecting interests.
- dbul 17y agoI'm not making such an argument as you are claiming. My argument is that it is absurd to make an assertion without a basis. The assertion about loopt was such an assertion. (To satisfy your model: 1. Google is coming out with a new product called latitude. It is related to finding people around you. 2. loopt has a product called loopt. It is related to finding people around you. 3. rms observed that #1->product and #2->product are related, and if their technology doesn't explicitly overlap, loopt might be a good candidate for acquisition in order to broaden Google's hold on finding people around you.) Not everything on Hacker News must be P1 P2 P3 -- Q
- zackattack 17y agoThe Loopt bit was a non sequitur and is not related to the conversation.
- dbul 17y agoIt was an analogy.
- rms 17y agoWhat's wrong with being absurd?
- dbul 17y agoFirst, the emphasis was on the lack of a basis for the comment. But to answer your question, it depends on whether you think something that may be borderline absurdity adds some kind of value to others: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=567298 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=567298 I knew when I wrote that it would probably be received poorly; indeed, it was volatile. But it was creative, and there was some truth to it. HN is too simplistic. I would venture to say it ultimately doesn't work, with evidence in responses like "Pot, socially" being #2 in the top comments under lists. HN is fun to experiment with, though.