simonkafan

Ah I see it now: "prefix=true" is the property that apparently includes "networking" when searched for "network"

Not for "home network": https://ibb.co/59yFDT5

It would already help if the rules of the app stores were decided by a parliament. And kicking a provider out of the store requires a court ruling.

It would be the downfall of the Google empire (and probably half of the Internet) if the majority of companies realized that most of their online/mobile ad budget is absolutely wasted. I don't know of any other industry where people put so much money into it only to have so little tangible evidence at the end of the day of what they really paid for ("look, X real people clicked on your ad.... at least that's what we tell you and whatever that means for you.").

My basic assumption is that most people at the big IT corps either just want to a) make money or b) work on interesting things. I don't think the majority there enjoy torturing colleagues or subordinates (although it certainly can happen). That being said, the story to me sounds entirely or at least partially made up. In this story, everyone at Apple seems to have only the goal of psychologically abusing OP. Especially the passage "the note section of a hidden slide on a deck that she had uploaded and it was an indirect suicide/murder threat" sounds absolutely implausible, why would someone put a death threat in a slide deck which clearly documents said threat?

My serious (and absolutely not mean-spirited) advice to OP: see a psychologist and talk to him about it, especially about all the "hidden signs" you supposedly received from colleagues.

I still don't see or have read about a useful use case for GPT-3. Maybe for procedurally generated chitchat between NPC in video games or an advanced Lorem ipsum generator but that's about it.

Not the same story but related: Microsoft had to rebrand his online storage SkyDrive to OneDrive once because the television broadcaster "Sky" won a trademark lawsuit in UK.

Can anyone tell me how this is possible? Why am I not allowed to use the word "sky" in any product name completely unrelated to TV?

Average employee tenure at Google is a little over 3 years so it doesn't seem to be the ultimate goal in life.

One good thing is, you can officially use it as an API¹. I used it to automatically search for training images for an algorithm.

¹ https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/services/cognitive-service...

Using chatbots to solve support/sales problems is like solving the problem of autonomous driving by putting a humanoid robot behind the wheel: It's unnecessary complex overhead, just stop that!

If I communicate with a human, sure natural language is the way to go. If I communicate with a computer, I want clear, straight facts just one mouse click away. I don't want to text my way through the bot database, I don't want to add language overhead when there is no real human on the other side.

Am I the only one?

It's like if you would have to ask Google or Apple for permission when you want to open a coffee shop or any other business and have to give them 30% of your profit.

App marketplaces must be a public good and under the surveillance of the public and not controlled by a few old chief executives of Google or Apple.

Imagine you had to invert a binary tree on a whiteboard just to create something like this...

Does someone want to set up a stadiacountdown.com for Google TV?

I would agree to work for Shibu Philip if he applies the same rules to himself and workers can see his keystrokes, mouse movements and websites visited. And if he's not spending his time looking at employees keystrokes, mouse movements and websites visited, his bonus is halved every time someone catches him doing something else.

The question is: What do you want to build? What problem do you want to solve?

If you don't know yet, then figure this out first. It is useless* to spend your time reading about how blockchain solutions on AWS work when you don't have a plan what to do next with this knowledge.

*) except if this interests you personally

This is an interesting general question that would deserve more attention: What do top executives in a company really do to bring the business forward and how do you measure it? How do you measure today whether the decision to invest 10 billion in drone delivery today will lead to a huge ROI in 10 years?

I think you can't because you can't predict the future which means, the high payment of executives is simply based on trust (by the company owners) that they will do the right things for the company.

So "too dangerous to release" really meant: Too commercially important to release it for free.

This sounds horrible to me. I mean, do you really want to spend your life having to deal with leetcode for several months every 2-3 years? Maybe some people find coding interviews and leetcode problems exciting, I find them tedious and want to avoid them. Not talking about the pressure to find a new job in 60 days.

So no FAANG? Indeed. You only live once and can spend your time better.

Maybe because the audience on Twitter and Hackernews is different?

The solution would be simple: Stop supporting Apple. Don't release apps on their platform. As long as everyone is just blindly following their orders, nothing will change.

And change is possible: Microsoft didn't care much about developers and users when IE was browser market leader and look what happened.

Why do we have to make everything so forcefully career driven? Just enjoy writing code and showing it to the world if you want - no strings attached. Github helps in this case.

tl;dr: A Github competitor is looking for reasons to rage against Github/Microsoft.

It's interesting to see how Google turned from a respected company everyone wanted to work at to a "persona non grata" within just a few years. I wonder what were the main reasons for this change?

Take a look at what happend to Huawei. If your business is somehow dependent on the goodwill of one person or one company, they can decide if you live or die. And they will at some point.

This is the opposite of freedom.

I still haven't found a good answer why they do this. "Makes it harder to tell if the current site is legitimate" sounds like an excuse. If you are the perfect target for a phishing attack (= clicks on everything, enters passwords everywhere, has no clue about host names) then you also won't be able to understand what Chrome presents you in the address bar after obfuscation.

My best explanation so far is that the Chrome team doesn't know how to improve their browser anymore so they just make up work to keep the software engineers busy.

You write this like its a fact but it's just your opinion. Deepl.com for example is on par and imho even better than Google Translate for some languages.

Why another general purpose search engine? How about a niche, for example a search engine that can be extensively controlled by using Boolean algebra, Regex, first-order logic?

Googles results got less and less reasonable over the last years.

> We want to be the 2% of your software budget that makes the other 98% more valuable; they want 100% of your budget every time.

Please. You are a company in a capitalistic system, it's your goal to make money. If you'd have the chance, you'd also take 100% of your customers money every time.

> that it’s possible for a model to someday reach human levels of generalization in NLP

Fully disagree. There is no evidence that we are now closer to human level text understanding than before GPT-3. Yes, GPT-3 produces grammatically correct sentences but it still can't form a coherent idea or meaning and express it in sentences afterwards - that's what humans would do. GPT-3 is just better at obfuscating that the model has no clue what it's talking about.

Nevertheless, compared with Eliza or other bots from 1960-2000 we made remarkable progress.

I agree that the text generation has improved dramatically. But there is a big gap between "generating gramatically correct sentences" and "sentences that express an elaborated idea". For example:

> I was thinking of how cool it would be to build a Twitter-like service where the only posts are GPT-3 outputs.

Why would I need that? There are better ways for entertainment.

> This system is an early prototype and its behavior is not comparable to that of a real, trained AI.

Nonsense. This made it clear for me that the author (= GPT-3) has no real clue what it's talking about.

Even though this looks like we got one step closer to text understanding - we did not. We just got better in obfuscating that those algorithms have no real sense and clue of what they talk about.