> Exactly, the legal system's job is not necessarily finding the truth.
The system purpose is to try and find the truth, because that helps society function, but is imperfect. It is good enough, so far, to keep society functioning, though its imperfection allows injustice to happen.
> It's who can convince the judge/jury better even if they use nasty tactics.
The adversarial system[1] does result in nasty tactics emerging, and I think there is room there for improvement.
Google communication culture started as open and relaxed so people could go on a public internal forum and say their opinion "I think if we add x, y, z feature we can kill the competition". This is nothing specific to Google, it happens perhaps everywhere but Google wasn't policing it in written communication.
Then all these written opinions were gobbled up by lawyers during the discovery phase of endless lawsuits Google has to defend. It created constant headache so they said, we'll auto delete chats older than a few days unless you opt-out.
Now a court and this article say they are destroying evidence.
I've personally lost my trust in both the media and the legal system honestly. The incentives are just not aligned with good outcomes. The incentive for the media is more and more drama and the incentives for lawyers is always adversarial depending on who they represent.
> Google communication culture started as open and relaxed so people could go on a public internal forum and say their opinion "I think if we add x, y, z feature we can kill the competition". This is nothing specific to Google, it happens perhaps everywhere but Google wasn't policing it in written communication.
What is specific to Google is that they have monopolies, and it's illegal to use that power to kill the competition. One solution is for a manager or executive to say, 'no, we can't do that' instead of promoting the idea.
One of the better-known instances, at least for Geeks Of a Certain Age, was "Bad Attitude", the unofficial group chat for Netscape, run personally by jwz. He'd written about the consequences of that being included within the scope of discovery by Microsoft lawyers during Netscape's actions against that company.
I find Safari to be a fantastic product overall both on desktop and mobile but I have stuck to Chrome to keep my options open in future in case I want to use non-Apple hardware
Why would either of those two be allowed to buy Chrome. Meta is just as much an ad business and quasi-monopoly as Google is. Microsoft has already been in legal trouble over browsers and is actively trying to recreate Google ad empire.
Governments are kinda stupid in these cases, but I think Google would be able to argue, if forced to sell, that neither of those two companies would improve the market situation.
Sell it to Opera, except they're Chinese now. Jon Stephenson von Tetzchner, the co-founder of Opera and CEO of Vivaldi, should buy it, that would be a hilarious outcome.
If Apple, Mozilla, and a stand alone Chrome sell search traffic at the fair market price and Google pays the highest price (because they have the best monetization) we're back where we started.
Microsoft wouldn't have a the kind of vertically integrated monopoly where they control both the internet properties and the browser used to access them.
Looking at this case and the recent case against SpaceX (which is required to only hire US permanent residents and citizens) for not hiring asylees, makes me think DOJ which has the bandwidth to only work on few very important cases isn't doing a good job overall.
I think the point is to stop adding more features. The web is feature complete, everything Google is adding is just stuff to make them more money through ads and lock in.
There’s an argument to be made that a high pace of new feature additions effectively functions as a moat that ensures that new competitive web engines cannot be developed as a result of not being able to ever catch up.
I believe most people use AI to help them quickly figure out how to use a library or an API without having to read all their (often out dated) documentation instead of helping them solve some mathematical challenge
If the documentation is out of date, such that it doesn't help, this doesn't bode well for the training data of the AI helping it get it right, either?
Unfortunately, it often hallucinates wrong parameters (or gets their order wrong) if there are multiple different APIs for similar packages. For example, there are plenty ML model inference packages, and the code suggestions for NVIDIA Triton Inference Server Python code are pretty much always wrong, as it generates code that’s probably correct for other Python ML inference packages with slightly different API.
I often find the opposite. Documentation can be up to date, but AI suggests deprecated or removed functions because there’s more old code than new code. Pgx v5 is a particularly consistent example.
I have carefully picked the people I follow on Twitter (mostly scientists and CS people) so the feed is ok but every time I try to use it for recent news/events, it's so full of spam it's unusable.
I like the community notes feature but it doesn't show up that much. Separately I dislike the fact that Elon asked the staff to make exception for his account when it comes to ranking decisions. That's ridiculous.
It's a problem we used to work on and perhaps many other people have always wanted to accomplish since 10 years ago. So it's yet to be seen how well it works outside a demo.
What was surprising was the slow/human speed of operations. It types into the text boxes at a human speed rather than just dumping the text there. Is it so the human can better monitor what's happening or is it so it does not trigger Captchas ?
reply