joebadmo

15 ms·

91.
by joebadmo 15y ago
> Google, the institution, just has not to be evil, as they have defined evil. That there's obvious internal disquet about their new direction should be fairly disqueting to you. Could you point me to the obvious internal disquiet? Is
92.
by joebadmo 15y ago
First, I'm enjoying this discussion and I'm glad it remains civil. Thanks! > As I said, it's less about the specifics of what they're doing now, and more about the apparent switch of focus from "organising the world's information" [0]
93.
by joebadmo 15y ago
> ...it would be wise not to put yourself in a position where you're either forced to do evil, or worse, can't tell if what you're doing is evil or not. I think you're conflating two perspectives. While we as bystanders can parse and
94.
by joebadmo 15y ago
Can't you address this by just setting up a private git repository on S3 or something? But to the more general point: seems like a good reason to use (or make) decentralized open-source self-hosted system. Like OpenPhoto, for instance. Here
95.
by joebadmo 15y ago
I'm not sure where coercion comes into it. I guess my point is that evil isn't always easily discernible, and this is probably most true wrt the most important subjects. They said "Don't be evil," whereas you're interpreting that as "Don't
96.
by joebadmo 15y ago
Unfortunately, things like privacy policies and appropriate use of personal information aren't as straightforward, even for children. "Theoretically, there's no difference between theory and practice," right? Also, if you think the concept
97.
by joebadmo 15y ago
I got out the book and checked, and actually you're right, it was a more general statement than just about UX. (It was meant to be a frank and memorable statement that applied across the board, from UX to the greater good.) On the other han
98.
by joebadmo 15y ago
The real problem is people don't really understand the context of "Don't be evil." If you read Steven Levy's In the Plex , or any first-hand account, really, you realize it's more about always thinking about the user experience first. It h
99.
by joebadmo 15y ago
I assume that means you don't have a problem with people who bash both, then? That is: I don't follow sports, and I also don't really care what operating system you prefer. (Though I think the OS one is a bit more rational, since it has a d
100.
by joebadmo 15y ago
I'm not convinced that that's the source of identification people feel with Apple. There are certainly other organizations that make a bigger and more overt "difference" than Apple, no?
101.
by joebadmo 15y ago
Normal ranking algorithms apply normally. Social networking profiles have extra data, you know, like social activity and social graph, that Google doesn't have access to. The pages you're talking about already show up and are ranked normall
102.
by joebadmo 15y ago
I'm saying it's fine for Twitter and FB to withhold that data. But they can't then complain about not being ranked fairly. Conversely, Google started off complaining about not getting access to FB and Twitter data. Then they shut up and mad
103.
Facebook's False Frame of Reference(popmatters.com)
12 points by joebadmo 15y ago|2 comments
104.
by joebadmo 15y ago
Your comment is very confusing to me. If it's a public API, why would Google have to return anything? And Google's proposition to all web sites everywhere is that in exchange for indexing their content, they provide exposure through the bes
105.
by joebadmo 15y ago
However... artificially ranking their own links, ranking that isn't objective, is deadly to the utility of their search, and to their brand. In the past, google products have seemed to rank highly, but google claimed this was their natural
106.
by joebadmo 15y ago
That seems like a perfectly reasonable point to collegially disagree on. I can't say that I have any special insight into what goes on inside Google, but contrary to your experience, I feel my search experience has generally gotten better.
107.
by joebadmo 15y ago
I agree that the social relevancy stuff is clearly not very good yet. But 1. I expect it to get better; and 2. Google faces a chicken-and-egg problem of not being able to extract meaningful signal from an unused social network, and a social
108.
by joebadmo 15y ago
You can wave your hands around in pretty patterns all you want – the fact remains I'm a user who used to enjoy the product and now is frustrated by it. I'm not alone in this. Have they annoyed enough users for it to be a big problem? We'll
109.
by joebadmo 15y ago
I disagree with your premise. The two previous "compromises" you cite are both examples of giving you what you want, instead of what you said you want. While your anecdotal data says that you are annoyingly misled by that, I'm sure there's
110.
by joebadmo 15y ago
I'm not sure I agree with this direction, as this system seems like it has a high cognitive load, that doesn't allow a lot of relegation to muscle memory (ie it seems like you have to keep the feedback loop between your keying and the optio
111.
by joebadmo 15y ago
And let's not forget that Twitter and FB both have search features (actually I'm not sure about FB, I've never been on it, but it has to, right?), and furthermore, they're both in their ways trying to obviate search by providing what people
112.
by joebadmo 15y ago
I had a similar idea. Could be as simple as a personal rss podcast feed with a bookmarklet that lets you add items. I'd certainly use it.
113.
by joebadmo 15y ago
I have of late been grappling with Dunning-Kruger, which I'd like to apply to this topic. How do I know if I have this problem? Because everyone filters advice through their brain in one way or another, right? How can I tell if my brain is
114.
by joebadmo 15y ago
The DMCA obviously hasn't killed the internet, but it is having some subtle and (IMO) pernicious effects on our culture. I wrote about some of them in this post on the Atlantic Tech Blog: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/
115.
by joebadmo 15y ago
I'm curious about the long tail effects of this. I wonder how many people in need found a donor match from all the people that got tested for this campaign?
116.
by joebadmo 15y ago
Ah, that's a fair point. The post is, in the end, imploring MS to change. And I suppose part of that point is the economic one that MS is losing sales because of this. Adding the premise that you want to send an economic message to MS as we
117.
by joebadmo 15y ago
I have no idea whether it's technically legal, actually. But I'm working off two premises: 1. The author doesn't care about legality, since he's finally resorting to piracy anyway. 2. The author would like to compensate MS for the use of a
118.
by joebadmo 15y ago
While I'm entirely sympathetic to the author's DRM plight, buying the software and getting the pirate's cleaner experience are not mutually exclusive. If you want the best experience and a clean conscience (I'm assuming here you think pirac
119.
by joebadmo 15y ago
Seems to me the upward trending platforms are all qualitatively different from the crashed ones in that they're not crystallized the way those earlier, more console-type ones were. So this visualization doesn't seem particularly illuminatin
120.
by joebadmo 15y ago
I think the formulation that "the smartest people in the world are working hard to come up with ways to get you to click on ads" is awfully reductive. Reading Steven Levy's In the Plex really gave me a sense of what the people at Google a

More ›