vdaniuk

152 ms·

661.
by vdaniuk 13y ago
Well, while discussing this issue on HN I was thinking about the task obtaining data to reason objectively about the pros and cons so I'll be happy to share my thoughts. What could be done? 1. Query lots(100 000s) of Youtube videos and
662.
by vdaniuk 13y ago
I,too, see fanatics in this thread and many others. They produce no cost-benefit analysis of G+ YT integration, use loaded language, provide anecdotal evidence and appeal to emotions.
663.
by vdaniuk 13y ago
Non sequitur if I ever seen one. 1. I never stated that Google software is magnificent. I stated that it is ridiculous to judge a corporate giant with thousands of engineers by pointing to a bad bug created by one team. 2. I do not work at
664.
by vdaniuk 13y ago
Care to elaborate? Preferably with proofs that if activity and social graphs of two accounts ovelap at some threshold level user accounts are flagged.
665.
by vdaniuk 13y ago
You are absolutely correct. I am lost, however, at why your comment is directed to me, not my opponents who are trying to persuade the community at large that G+ YT integration is evil.
666.
by vdaniuk 13y ago
How much time did you spend figuring Google+ pages? It is straightforward and is nearly the same experience as creating a page on facebook. You literally need less than 10 minutes to create a Google+ page http://www.google.com&#x
667.
by vdaniuk 13y ago
What are you arguing exactly? Is allowing HTML unescaped a really bad security practice? Sure it is. Does it say anything about the overall software quality of a corporation that employs more than 45 000 people? No, it doesn't.
668.
by vdaniuk 13y ago
We won't be able to find any common ground on this matter. I belive that subjective impression of random journalists or channel owners doesn't matter at all. So we'll agree to disagree.
669.
by vdaniuk 13y ago
Just create an account with "John or Jane Smith" or any other believable combination of common names.
670.
by vdaniuk 13y ago
Or make a G+ page that allows pseudonymous comments for YT videos. Simple as that.
671.
by vdaniuk 13y ago
Care to provide ANY facts beyond anecdotes that their expertise is not used for filtering Youtube comments? BTW you did make a claim that Slashdot would give filters to Google so there is that.
672.
by vdaniuk 13y ago
You have zero proof that this all matters to any significant portion of the userbase. And I was arguing that pissing off the small part of the user base that wasn't happy with Google in the first place doesn't matter. And I stand
673.
by vdaniuk 13y ago
Well, obviously we have very different criteria for judging arguments and data.
674.
by vdaniuk 13y ago
People are claiming that is straight, undeniably evil of Google to merge identity systems. I say that those commenters don't really know what evil is and their priorities are way off.
675.
by vdaniuk 13y ago
Slashdot providing Google with algos to detect spam? Thats adorable. I respect slashdot but claiming that they may have better NLP algorithms than Google is absolutely unbelievable.
676.
by vdaniuk 13y ago
So that you won't be able to move goalposts later, what exactly is your criteria to state that a company does shitty software? As it is now, your comment states the following: Google did some software with bugs and bad UX => Google
677.
by vdaniuk 13y ago
>Yes, it is. Not alone, but given the argumentation that Youtube-comments did get even worse because of this change. No, it is not. You cant cherry pick examples to prove your point. To argue that Youtube comments did get worse by supply
678.
by vdaniuk 13y ago
Are you really trying to imply that Google does shitty software? Based on a single failure of spam/obscenity filter? Your reality distortion field must be really powerful.
679.
by vdaniuk 13y ago
"It's the biggest public outcry Google's faced thus far." Care to share what metrics are you using to define that? I just dont see this. Including that Google got under fire for closing Google reader, NSA leaks, Wi-Fi d
680.
by vdaniuk 13y ago
I guess it is a complete coincidence that popular "we are now hacker news" thread appeared on 4chan and four posts against real name policy on Youtube are now on the front page of HN. All submitted within 24 hours. /s And now
681.
by vdaniuk 13y ago
Should we rigorously discourage people from speculating that women are better than men in any dimension?
682.
by vdaniuk 13y ago
1. Post in public groups 2. Comment on popular posts. 3. Comment on popular pages and accounts. 4. Spam hashtags Enough?
683.
by vdaniuk 13y ago
Do you have any proof that significant number of people are moving away from almost all Google properties? This sounds very anecdotal.
684.
by vdaniuk 13y ago
Transhumanism will override all the genetically programmed behaviour :)
685.
by vdaniuk 13y ago
How does it work with search engines? Do you regenerate a static html version every x seconds?
686.
by vdaniuk 13y ago
I see no problem with investing in weed and prostitution if it is beneficial for all(impossible) or most stakeholders. Yes, Snapchat provides small incremental improvement of people's lives. But it does it for 25M users, mind that. And
687.
by vdaniuk 13y ago
Arguably, there is nothing more important for a human being as an sentient organism than an endorphin fix obtained from various sources: love, surprise, food, etc. Snapchat provides that in a form of secure ephemeral messaging allowing user
688.
by vdaniuk 13y ago
Anecdotally, this might be one of the worst articles I've read on HN in a long time filled with ad hominem attacks, crude language, misplaced anger and trite memes to stir a controversy. The point is important but the presentation is v
689.
by vdaniuk 13y ago
Company != startup. They dont have revenues, but they have 25M users audience that will be instantly monetizable as soon as it is plugged in the FB or other company advertising system. And that makes them a perfectly fine target for acquisi
690.
by vdaniuk 13y ago
Except for that gimmick apps part. Snapchat has 25M users. That is more than most countries in the world to put it in perspective. That is nothing to scoff at.

More ›