No mention of LATCH theory? (Location, Alphabet, Time, Category, and Hierarchy)
Oddly, no matter how they are organized, their indices will always be a hierarchy (tree).
Personally, I think human brains just have a categorization approach that is built into our brains as hierarchy, so while other methods are definitely useful, they are an add-on, not a replacement.
For creating website (not apps) it absolutely is there. This is just the first rung on the ladder though. It’s not doing Linux kernel development yet, but that time will come eventually. In between are all the other rungs. AI will climb them one by one.
For me it is very much hit or miss. I use claude sonnet with Cline. Sometimes I'm blown away that it can create a new page with CRUD functionality, nice UI etc. in one go. Another time it struggles to create a simple web page. Yesterday I needed a very simple landing page. My prompt was something along `Very dark grainy background with centered "name of the page" text.`. It couldn't get neither the background, nor the centering right. Later when it got one right, it screwed up the second. I had to give up after consuming ~$1.5 because we were not getting closer to the result.
Grok3 has been amazing, but it keeps on wanting me to do dark mode for an app I’m creating. When I finally said yes, it wasn’t able to get dark ode to work, despite multiple tries. Was funny tbh.
Might be time for a class action lawsuit. Something like that could work out really well for the little guy as it would probably make a dent in the LLM companies pockets and access to data.
The problem is that Google owns both sides of the internet - the browser on your computer and the search engine to find everything.
As a result, they control your perception of the internet.
If a site doesn’t work, you as the user thinks the site doesn’t work. You don’t think oh, my browser is broken. Also, if you don’t find a site on Google the. To you, it doesn’t exist.
As a result, you have to bend your website to satisfy both Google search and Google chrome.
That’s why this is an issue. Because of those two things, Google effectively controls the internet, and you as a user or you as a website owner have essentially zero recourse when Google does something that harms you.
That framing of the issue makes a lot of sense. It might still be a reasonable middle ground if Google doesn't own Chrome itself, or control the proprietary bits or any related backend services, but still maintains leadership of Chromium development.
As a Firefox user, I also don't love the implications of forcing Google to end its default search engine deal with Firefox. If they changed course on that, then a similar deal with the hypothetical non-Google Chrome could be a viable way to maintain something like Chrome's current financial model without giving Google too much control over the web.
On the other hand, one might argue that Google's search business and that sector as a whole are already at a high enough risk right now without the courts throwing another wildcard into the mix. I'm not staking out a position on this one way or another, but I hope whatever decisions they land on are very carefully considered.
> if you don’t find a site on Google, to you, it doesn’t exist
What do you mean "find a site"? Are you saying the user has a website in mind they've visited before? Or are you saying the user doesn't have a website in mind, and is looking for "any website about XYZ?"
I don't think your claim is valid. At what point does the user conclude something "doesn't exist"? Users never reach such a conclusion, in part because Google results tell us "bro, your search returned 480 million results."
How many people get past the first page? I'd wager a guess its under 3%. It could be 20 results or an infinite amount, it wouldn't make a single bit of difference. It is a fact that google gets to control who and what shows up in a search, and they put paying entries at the top. There are many problems with this. They have also de-listed websites from google search, and are at a high risk of complying with any government request to censor topics. Which, again, is not good for humanity.
That's an answer to a different question. Italian restaurants might use the first page of their menu for pizza. Do customers who want pasta conclude pasta "doesn't exist" because it's not listed on first page?
Please demonstrate what you know before making representations about what we know.
The restaurant sells more pizza than pasta, so they put pizza on the first page of menu. The strategy works, people come back for more pizza.
Google facilitates conversions by presenting paid results relevant to search intent. If nobody ever clicked paid results and converted, businesses wouldn't buy those paid spots. Admittedly, Google makes tracking success of paid ad spending a confusing nightmare, but not impossible to work out with some effort.
If there's only 10 organic spots on the highly sought after page 1, paid search is a way to fight it out in the market. Fair enough?
It's a balance of:
* Running a search engine business.
* Providing quality paid results that match search intent
* Surfacing quality organic results that match search intent
* Allowing various ways to filter and access results according to refined search intent, for example advanced search tools or other channels such as image, shopping search, maps etc.
Can't find what? Are you saying people are using Google to search for things they've misplaced? At what point is the user thinking "I can't find what I'm looking for?"
If they want a lasagna recipe, they use Google. If (for whatever reason), a particular lasagna recipe is not findable via this method, it for all intents and purposes doesn't exist.
So the user has something in mind. Your example is a recipe.
Just to clarify my point. Google isn't meddling with your Lasagna recipes.
The parent poster claimed website owners need to "bend your website to satisfy both Google search and Google chrome". This isn't accurate, and the claim should have been called out by more than me.
You might never use Chrome other than 30 seconds of quick testing your website build. I build sites that obtain high search ranking and I barely open Chrome. I conform to HTML standards and other good practices regarding content and structure. There's nothing "Google" about a good website other than the alarmist misinformation such as expressed by the person's comment in this thread about needing to "bend to Chrome".
The irony is I'm not friends with Google. So many things they do I object to. Even their "super-thanks" how they take 30% cut, it's criminal. People were using super-thanks to donate to fire victims on youtube, and Google was grabbing 30% of every donation for itself. I can't forgive that. BUT... I don't think they should be made to stop doing deals to be default search engine, that is overreach. Forced to sell Chrome?... don't care. I don't use Chrome.
So, I was in a conversation with someone who made an interesting comment.
He said we have a gold reserve and that makes sense, but if we become interplanetary, then you don’t want to pay to ship gold to Mars. Crypto solves that issue. The reserve will last well into the future so preparing now makes sense.
Unique take to be sure, but sharing because it was interesting.
The United States needs to establish a crypto reserve to prepare for a permanent Martian settlement with an independent economy 100 years from now? It's difficult to think of something less relevant to the well-being of the American public.
You can really tell it's just another pump-n-dump scheme because no reputable science enjoyer would read/write a novel about this in sci-fi except to describe a dystopia or satire.
Having gold-equivalent reserves seems like the very last thing that Martian colonists need to worry about. I would suspect "how do we survive in an extraordinarily hostile environment with no hope of rescue when something goes wrong" is a higher priority one to solve.
This level of thinking is exactly why we're so far away manned exploration of the solar system. Early colonists absolutely cannot treat these missions as business expenses.
> Every colony is expected to earn, this is the history of colonialization.
The problem with a Martian (or even lunar) colony is that... there's not actually anything valuable there. So a traditional "earning" colony is basically off the table, and aside from the technological hurdles, is probably why the drive to do it just hasn't been there. Of our closes celestial neighbors, well, Venus is just useless entirely what with how hostile the atmosphere is to our... everything, Mars is quite far away, several months via current technology, and it's incredibly, devastatingly thin atmosphere and lower gravity means any given colony will require a lot and I do mean a LOT of support from us here on Earth to function. Colony isn't even really an appropriate word here, as colonization implies some level of living at the destination and between the lack of breathable atmosphere, lack of any and all flora, and lack of water, you're basically requiring regular supply drops or everyone is just dead.
Really the moon is far better in the transit aspect, which since you're supplying your colony from here, is a huge data point. And even then, what does that colony then do? The moon doesn't have much of anything we're really hurting for, certainly nothing to make up for the exorbitant cost of mining there. I could see it as a valuable location for low-G construction of larger, further-going spacecraft I suppose? But in terms of "expected to earn," I think either the red planet or our friend in the sky is going to be pretty dire.
When your colpny's line of support is a bubble om your head and a single sensitive means of transport, you don't want people thinking in terms of monetization. We can save taxation for the 24th century if and when we manage to terraform mars and make planatery transport not cost trillions of dollars.
But yes, I agree with you on the backers. That's precisely why I don't think they will be the ones landing Mars.
See, I want to agree with you, but at the same time we are actively burning our only habitable planet because the rich refuse to give up any money. So I guess, if we only send poor people to live on Mars, this will probably hold? But if there's one rich guy up there he'll probably kill every last person with him if you don't make sure he gets paid.
It solves the problem? The problem of shipping gold to mars? This is as made-up a problem as you get. Might as well say "What if advanced aliens come to Earth who already use crypto based currencies and the only way to stop them from destroying the earth is to pay them in ripple. So basically we need the reserve to save all life on earth."
Mars lies just at the edge of the asteroid belt. There is plenty of gold in the belt.
But to state the obvious: the Martians can keep their gold in Earth banks, just like Russia used to keep its gold in UK and Swiss banks. Many European countries still do. Even on Earth, nobody prefers to move gold around.
yeah it would cost more to ship it to Mars then it would cost to get a team of the most expensive contractors you can find to dig it out of the surface of Mars with their bare hands.
Not to mention the absurdity of thinking crypto would be more usable over interplanetary internet than VISA/ACH, or that such a society on Mars, when more than a research outpost, would benefit at all from being economically bound and gagged to a distant terrestrial currency.
> Crypto solves that issue.
Asteroid mining solves the issue. Gold will be functionally unlimited. Cryptocurrency will be long forgotten in history books after the first self sustaining space colony exists.
Maybe I am missing something, but what issue were they alluding to?
Yes, databases (anything digital for that matter) are easier to transfer over large physical distances. Why would there be a need to ship or transfer anything in that manner, considering we as earth bound humans have stopped moving around large quantities of gold for purely financial purposes quite some time ago?
Besides being a damning inditement of whatever interplanetary society they were envisioning, I’d be interested in what their view on modern day precious metal trading as a whole is.
After WW1, in the treaty of Versailles the German Reich, having just lost the war, was made responsible for starting it - it played a part in starting it, but was hardly fully responsible. So its successor state got a huge amount of reparations forced upon. Calling that out was a part of the appeal of the Nazis to the germans.
Now, how that is related to freezing assets from Russia I do not see. Even if interpreted as some kind of reparations, the lesson of that time was not that all reparations lead to a later war. Rather that humiliation will lead to resentment which can lead to war later. Huge and unjust reparations can be a part of that, but that's hardly the scenario we see today.
Macron is (understandably) deeply unpopular in France right now, seems like that seeps into the judgement of his actions here.
Some historians agree, some disagree. It's a typical question for your high school history exams. A good one as one can arrive at both answers when looking at the historic facts. In very short: The German Reich wanted that war and pushed it, but so did the other European nations.
"Germany" as we know it today did not exist before or during or even directly after WW1. You could just as easily say e.g. Poland was responsible for WW1 because most of that region was also part of the German Empire.
What's next, making Italy pay reparations for the roman empire? Making Turkey or other arab countries pay reparations for their empires?
I'm not sure what your point is because nobody is suggesting that modern Germany pay reparation for WW1. The discussion was about reparations that Germany has already paid after WW1, imposed on it by the victorious Entente. There's a long-standing historical myth that those reparations were 1) unjustified because Germany was not actually solely or primarily responsible for the war, and 2) excessive. It further goes to claim that this is a big part of why Germany went Nazi and started WW2 eventually. This was, indeed, the prevailing wisdom in the inter-war era, but Fritz Fischer poked a lot of holes in it after WW2.
At this point, while there's still no consensus as to the degree of German responsibility, most historians would weight it significantly higher than that of the Entente. The notion that reparations (and the Treaty of Versailles in general) was particularly onerous and punitive has also been largely debunked. However, the popular understanding still mostly reflects the inter-war consensus and not the later developments.
Oddly, no matter how they are organized, their indices will always be a hierarchy (tree).
Personally, I think human brains just have a categorization approach that is built into our brains as hierarchy, so while other methods are definitely useful, they are an add-on, not a replacement.