utopcell

37 ms·

631.
by utopcell 7y ago
Of course it does. For word w they are v_w and v'_w on Eq.4 for the case of SGNS [1]. [1] https://papers.nips.cc/paper/5021-distributed-representation...
632.
by utopcell 7y ago
I think it very unfair to the original set of word2vec papers to be talking about 'academic dishonesty'. This is a case of a user that has little to no experience with neural networks. There are a ton of articles describing the ne
633.
by utopcell 7y ago
Fascinating! This explains why I never saw anything like PageRank in YST: I presume it was present in what became Vespa (which, to be fair, probably didn't scale to YST's corpora sizes.) Pity we can't continue this conversati
634.
by utopcell 7y ago
Yahoo's core search engine was based on Inktomi's, which was acquired in 2003. There was no PageRank in there, and there was no infrastructure to execute anything similar either. (I worked for a significant amount of time on link-
635.
by utopcell 7y ago
..as is evident but the responses to your comment ?
636.
by utopcell 7y ago
a bit exaggerated, but sadly there's a core of truth to it.
637.
by utopcell 7y ago
Patents can be defensive. Someone else could had patented it and used it against them. Also (subjective opinion), they were kids: They thought patenting it was important, like they thought asking Yahoo for a mere $1M to buy it was a great d
638.
by utopcell 7y ago
I did a single search on Google back in the '90s and never left. The quality gap was enormous, and it has stayed like this ever since. What world do you live in ?
639.
by utopcell 7y ago
Not sure what you think you understood while at Yahoo, but Yahoo never used PageRank. Inlink-based signals, obviously, but never PageRank. Also, to state the obvious: Google's own execution of PageRank is orders of magnitude more compl
640.
by utopcell 7y ago
Still within the centuries time window. :-)
641.
by utopcell 7y ago
sure, everyone will click on your random links.
642.
by utopcell 7y ago
I find it mind-boggling that privacy-conscious folks go for DDG. This is a company that hides in their FAQ that their results are also backed by Yandex [1], and the first thing they ask you to do when you go to their home page is install a
643.
by utopcell 7y ago
Yes it is, if <insert your favorite expensive car here> is the same price as your Hyundai (that is, free). If however you moved because you found Google's results to be inferior, then that is a perfectly valid reason. As for the
644.
by utopcell 7y ago
The problem with falling back only 20% to 25% of the time is that you don't know what you've missed. By going to Google you already realize it is a better engine. What is the tangible gain of this self-sabotaging ?
645.
by utopcell 7y ago
Chances are, it would had taken me 4 hours to compile that response alone.
646.
by utopcell 8y ago
I interpreted that failure as Google being powerless against big ISPs.
647.
by utopcell 8y ago
Didn't Google try to disrupt the market with Fiber ?
648.
by utopcell 8y ago
Thank you for sharing, this looks like a nice reference (although the irony of obtaining this link via hacker news is not lost on me.)
649.
by utopcell 8y ago
Was it necessary to bring up gender ?
650.
by utopcell 8y ago
Nicely written post that summarizes the major pain points wrt cache hierarchies. The canonical reference for diving deeper is "What Every Programmer Should Know About Memory" [1]. [1] https://people.freebsd.org/~ls
651.
by utopcell 8y ago
Not really true: Google bombing is almost as old as Google itself.
652.
by utopcell 8y ago
More often than not, if a term is missing from a page, chances are it is on the anchor text of a link that points to the page.
653.
by utopcell 8y ago
Not sure you understood why Google was fined. Search placement is irrelevant in this context. This pertains to search results restricted to a third-party site, embedded on that site. If you want to make a general argument about Search place
654.
by utopcell 8y ago
False premise: it doesn't.
655.
by utopcell 8y ago
The Google Search page is not a market place and the original argument against Google is absurd. For instance, if I search for "The Art of Computer Programming" on Google, the first result through which I can actually buy the book
656.
by utopcell 8y ago
I understood the argument (it wasn't that complicated to make.) By this reasoning, Google Ads is a different product from Google Search and as such gets preferential treatment by being the only one presented in Google's search res
657.
by utopcell 8y ago
I'm saying it doesn't. Google doesn't prioritize its own products on its organic search results.
658.
by utopcell 8y ago
I can't wait to walk into a Walmart and see poster ads for Best Buy near its entrance. Why is Walmart abusing its dominance as a retailer ? (This line of reasoning actually makes sense to some people.)
659.
by utopcell 8y ago
Eventually they are going to fine Google for showing only Google ads on Google's search page.
660.
by utopcell 8y ago
I've used Crow [1], a C++ web micro framework, in the past and it was delightful. Glad to see more competition in this space. [1] https://github.com/ipkn/crow

More ›