Sundar's claim to fame is Google Toolbar for MSIE. It was a big deal at that time. It locked Google search on MSIE and ultimately enable navboost in search quality.
Then he was the product lead on the Chrome team. I don't know if it was him who lobbied Page to create Chrome.
Not true. Fiat currencies are backed by the consumer of last resort: governments. Everyone has to pay taxes using the official currency of the country. For instance, US$ is backed by approximately 25% of the GDP which the government collects every year in taxes.
The system we have today requires surveillance and control of governments to function. The parallel system or systems on the internet would also require some form of external, i.e. off blockchain, control to function as well as the current system. So far humanity has not invented anything better than democratically elected governments to implement such controls.
Blockchain cannot in principle replace governments because governing comes down to use of violence. Unless, of course, you are advocating going back to times when barons fought each other with private armies.
> The system we have today requires surveillance and control of governments to function. The parallel system or systems on the internet would also require some form of external, i.e. off blockchain, control to function as well as the current system.
Two issues here:
1. The assumption that such, let's call it "government style" control (or at leaast a significant part of it) is necessary for such a system to function as well as the current one (a whole other question is what "as well as" means here). That seems possibly reasonable, but is certainly an assumption worth testing.
2. The assumption that you need a government to exert this "government style" control. Maybe humanity hasn't invented anything better and never will. But also maybe such things can exist, especially within a limited field like finance, and even if they can't, I'd take the Democratically Elected Government of Cyberspace[1], should such a thing be needed/emerge, over the squabbling and overreach of nation state governments into the internet.
There are already plenty of projects experimenting with "on-chain governance" and there are a myriad areas of research into governance of decentralised systems. It is perfectly possible that a system of financial (or other) projects/protocols might emerge that all subscribe to a protocol for such governance, which could even go as far as enforcing collateral ratios, risk reporting, whatever, but would still be fundamnetally controlled by its users in a way outside of government control. Or perhaps individual protocol level governance will be enough. Either way it seems completely unlikely that the present system is the best we can do.
In this case, there would still of course continue to be the wild west of systems outside that regime, in competing regimes, or even working within the legacy financial system, but that freedom to innovate is a feature not a bug.
> Blockchain cannot in principle replace governments because governing comes down to use of violence. Unless, of course, you are advocating going back to times when barons fought each other with private armies.
This is why I qualified the goal with "on the internet". If you have privacy, pseudonymous participation, Tor (or Tor-like networks/blockchains, like Nym) , etc. and smart contract platforms that can issue, move, and lock up/control funds using composable code, run entirely on chain, then of course you can build protocols and systems that govern them that sit outside government control as long as they manifest themselves only virtually.
It is only at the edges, where you interact with and move to and from virtual (the internet) and physical society that you become subject to state violence. Blockchains and related technology might help organise the push for some kind of change to how governments work (as the internet itself has), but whatever happens, you can probably do what you like when it's purely online, and you will probably still need a good answer to questions like "where did you get that money?". I think that's OK.
Let me repeat: any kind of government comes down to monopoly on use of violence. It does not matter if it's Henry VIII or Kim Jong Un or Democratically Elected Government of Cyberspace or Pablo Escobar. The core of any government is a monopoly on violence. If your Democratically Elected Government of Cyberspace cannot or will not use violence to enforce its rules then it's not a government.
Second: you can't eat blockchain, you can't fill your gas tank with blockchain, blockchain won't protect you from cold rain. You have to convert your cybercoin to real-world goods at some point. That means a contract "BTC 1000 for 1 loaf of bread". This contract has to be enforced off blockchain because 1 loaf of bread is not on blockchain (no, NFT is not a loaf of bread, you can't eat NFT). And you guessed it right: this contract has to be enforced with a threat of violence. That means off-blockchain government.
> There are already plenty of projects experimenting with "on-chain governance"
I bet you a $1 none of them will go anywhere. Like all those experimental applications of blockchain that IBM, Maersk, and many others played with. Hard no useful outcome, complete failure each and every time for fundamental reasons. Like a complete failure each and every time anyone tries to build a perpetuum mobile.
There is one ONE (hard 1, like in math) use case for blockchain: circumvention of regulations. Once regulations are implemented on blockchain, it would lose its one and only use case.
> Let me repeat: any kind of government comes down to monopoly on use of violence. It does not matter if it's Henry VIII or Kim Jong Un or Democratically Elected Government of Cyberspace or Pablo Escobar. The core of any government is a monopoly on violence. If your Democratically Elected Government of Cyberspace cannot or will not use violence to enforce its rules then it's not a government.
There are things the government cannot know, and therefore things the government cannot control. Yes, they are ready to use violence to enforce their rules, no that doesn't help them read my encrypted data/messages/transactionds if I don't give them the key.
It doesn't matter if the governance on the blockchain can't use violence if it also controls how some system you wish to use works, as long as that control is sufficient to build a useful version of the system (which, again, from the above, can work on the internet without the support of a violent governmnet).
> Second: you can't eat blockchain, you can't fill your gas tank with blockchain, blockchain won't protect you from cold rain. You have to convert your cybercoin to real-world goods at some point. That means a contract "BTC 1000 for 1 loaf of bread". This contract has to be enforced off blockchain because 1 loaf of bread is not on blockchain (no, NFT is not a loaf of bread, you can't eat NFT). And you guessed it right: this contract has to be enforced with a threat of violence. That means off-blockchain government.
Once again: on the internet. I am not saying you can live a completely parallel physical life, and again, if the government of wherever you live ask where you got the money, you're going to need a good answer (and perhaps proof that breaks your anonymity). That's completely outside my point.
Firstly, you can choose to abide by the relevant local laws while also operating in a system that allows you the freedom to break the law. You do this when you drive a car within the speed limit or use end-to-end encrypted messaging legally. This alone is enough to justify building such systems. It is unacceptable to have compliance enforced on us as the current financial system does (and it's honestly crazy to me how many people who would not let governments agents regularly search through their stuff are fine with it when it comes to data or financial transactions), even if we intend to abide by all the rules under the threat of government violence.
Secondly, you may think a parallel online society/financial system is not useful if you can't turn its money into your government's favourite fiat currency, but I strongly disagree. There are many interesting and important uses, for such a system. These include organising activists, civil disobendience and protest, resistance of corrupt or authoritarian regimes, etc. as well as emerging online communities and "places" like the metaverse. (No, I can't think of any reason to NFT a loaf of bread either.)
> I bet you a $1 none of them will go anywhere. Like all those experimental applications of blockchain that IBM, Maersk, and many others played with. Hard no useful outcome, complete failure each and every time for fundamental reasons. Like a complete failure each and every time anyone tries to build a perpetuum mobile.
We'll see. I'd take that bet — I certainly expect some forms of governance (not necessarily government) to make sense on blockchains and work out to be pretty useful, though I'll reserve judgement on exactly what that will look like for now.
> There is one ONE (hard 1, like in math) use case for blockchain: circumvention of regulations. Once regulations are implemented on blockchain, it would lose its one and only use case.
Not that I agree with this statement, but if the alternative is round the clock surveillance and authoritarian enforcement of regulations then it's incredibly important that this use case succeeds and is available to everyone!
> Yes, they are ready to use violence to enforce their rules, no that doesn't help them read my encrypted data/messages/transactionds if I don't give them the key.
You are mistaken. There is a technique called "rubber-hose cryptanalysis" which works wonderfully in cases like the one you described. Once applied, you will gladly give up your key and anything else they ask for. That's what violence means.
If you do not control real world then you do not control anything. There is no way around violence. At least for as long as humans have physical bodies and live off blockchain.
> unacceptable to have compliance enforced on us as the current financial system does
You are arguing that because the current system is excessively regulated, then a system with no means to enforce the rules will work better. The problem with that is that blockchain is a lot more expensive to operate per transaction that the conventional systems. Because of that it can only be used when the conventional system cannot be, specifically for circumventing the regulations, i.e. breaking the law.
> but I strongly disagree.
You say you disagree, but you actually agree. All the cases you listed are cases of "circumvention of regulations".
> We'll see.
It's been long enough to see. Believing otherwise is like believing that this contraption with a few more tweaks will produce perpetual motion.
> some forms of governance
It's either able to enforce the rules with real-world violence, or it is irrelevant. It's really that binary 0 or 1. Nothing in between.
> Not that I agree with this statement
It's basic math as in 2 greater than 1. It does not matter if you disagree with it.
> but if the alternative is round the clock surveillance and authoritarian enforcement of regulations
That's not the point. Blockchain is a tool that helps you circumvent regulations (good or bad authoritarian or not, does not matter). It's a tool which has only one use: to facilitate circumvention of regulations. The point is if blockchain is regulated then it's no longer a useful tool for breaking the law and consequently irrelevant.
> You are mistaken. There is a technique called "rubber-hose cryptanalysis" which works wonderfully in cases like the one you described. Once applied, you will gladly give up your key and anything else they ask for. That's what violence means.
You aren't really engaging seriously. There is a difference between expensive targeted violence to coerce specific information from individual citizens, and dragnet surveillance and the power to freeze or seize money from anyone's account at will.
> You are arguing that because the current system is excessively regulated, then a system with no means to enforce the rules will work better. The problem with that is that blockchain is a lot more expensive to operate per transaction that the conventional systems. Because of that it can only be used when the conventional system cannot be, specifically for circumventing the regulations, i.e. breaking the law.
As one small example, to give a case where I actually know the numbers. I've done cost per trade analysis for major investment banks (while working at them, with full access to their internal data) and it's certainly not the case that blockchains always cost more per transaction, even with the current irterations of the technology. Not even close.
> You say you disagree, but you actually agree. All the cases you listed are cases of "circumvention of regulations".
Avoiding surveillance is not circumvention of regulations unless submitting to that surveillance is legally required. Certainly where I live, it is not. We can use cash, we can spend crypto, and if the government want to know what we did, they have to ask us (or coerce it out of us) with proper legal basis. There is no regulation requiring submission to constant financial surveillance that I'm aware of, but using the current financial system (ex. cash - so all electronic money and sll financial products) involves submitting to it anyway.
> It's been long enough to see. Believing otherwise is like believing that this contraption with a few more tweaks will produce perpetual motion.
Says who? I don't remember learning about a time limit to turn new technological develpoments into practical or useful inventions or companies. What about new aglorithms and research that have come about since the first networks were built, do they get to reset the timer and have a chance at it too or do they have to stop building because bitcoin didn't meet your targets by the cut off?
Really, there are many reasons massive technological change can, and usually does take a long time. Many layers of abstraction need to be built. Take the internet - we had networking, then TCP/IP, then many protocols some of which were "big" for years and are now dead, then HTTP, then TLS, and JavaScript and "Web 2.0", and cloud hosting, etc. etc. This literally took decades and is still going on! All the while the software was maturing, integrations were built, and adoption took off - first very unevenly and then everywhere.
I wouldn't be surprised at another 10-20 years to see really pervasive use of blockchain technology, but I see leaps toward that future all the time.
> It's basic math as in 2 greater than 1. It does not matter if you disagree with it.
Really no idea what you are on about here. Use cases are not mathematical. The technical use case for byzantine fault tolerance is to reach consensus on a set of facts (or operations or data or whatever) within a group of actors that you individually distrust, without needing to appeal to authority. If you are telling me you can (mathematically?) prove that the only possible use for that is to circumvent regulation, I'd love to see the proof, but without it I think it very much does matter that I see no reason to believe it.
> The point is if blockchain is regulated then it's no longer a useful tool for breaking the law and consequently irrelevant.
If "blockchain is regulated" goes as well as "speed limits on motorways are regulated" and "copying of digital media" is regulated, not to mention the war on drugs, then I think the application of regulation to it is likely to be of little practical concern to those who do want to use it to break laws.
Do you really want to switch discussion to personalities?
> and dragnet surveillance and the power to freeze or seize money from anyone's account at will
You still miss the point. Crypto is money only if it can be used to buy real world goods. If I control the real world then you can have all the crypto you want and still not be able to buy a loaf of bread.
> I actually know the numbers
Actually no. You are comparing apples to oranges. A transaction in a centralized database is always cheaper than in a distributed one. No exceptions.
> Says who?
I do. All your arguments still miss the fundamental issue with the distributed ledger: it's more expensive to operate than a centralized ledger. It's really that simple. 2 > 1. No amount of research and algorithms will change the fact that 2 is greater than 1.
The only reason you would pay more if you cannot get it for less. In case of a distributed ledger you would use it only when the centralized one is not available. The only known case when the centralized is not available is when it's unlawful.
> This literally took decades
No. All the techologies you listed were immediately useful. Blockchain has been around for more than 10 years. It's still not used for anything but circumvention of regulations.
> The over-prioritization of certain products, which has led to a lack of focus on other important issues like infrastructure
It comes down to someone's judgement call. It's usually not possible to quantify if "certain products" should be prioritized over "other important issues" or vice versa. Particularly so for someone who does not have the full picture.
> Not being able to output any higher or better quality products and services despite aggressively hiring more employees
Is it objective or just an opinion? If objective, how is it measured?
> Why fluff and not actionable in this case?
Because
"Someone anonymous said some of you were generally apathetic and sometimes condescending".
"Well, can you give specific examples? No? Then it's fluff and not actionable".
The petition is immature and maybe 'condescending attitude' towards petitioner is deserved.
Technically it's a great rendering engine, fast, standards-compliant, maybe only slightly more buggy than Webkit. Unfortunately it has a different set of bugs than webkit. Web developers have just so much time to debug the apps. Once the app works for ~90% of users on webkit, spending as much time or more testing and debugging for ~7% of FF users is not always justified.
This is a catch 22: FF users get more bugs - more pressure to move to Chrome, fewer users on FF - less money to develop Gecko leading to more bugs. My prediction is that FF will either drop Gecko or die.
I wonder why Fastmail decided to bend the knee and proactively block Russian IPs. The only thing those &^#%$-!@ could do is just that what FM did: block Russian IPs. Why make life easier for the dictators? What does FM gain by complying with their demands?
The reason for that is actually rational: when Amit Singhal was in charge the search rules were written by hand. Once he was fired, the Search Quality team switched to machine learning. The ML was better in many ways: it produced higher quality results with a lot less effort. It just had one possibly fatal flaw: if some result was wrong there was no recourse. And that's what you are observing now: search quality is good or excellent most of the time while sometimes it's very bad and G can't fix it.
I wouldn't call that rational. There is no reason you can't apply human weighting on top of ML.
Honestly, I don't believe for a minute they "can't fix it." They do this sort of thing all the time, for instance when ML shows dark skinned people for a search for gorilla, they obviously have recourse.
I’m confused. I read that article and it has this:
> But, as a new report from Wired shows, nearly three years on and Google hasn’t really fixed anything. The company has simply blocked its image recognition algorithms from identifying gorillas altogether — preferring, presumably, to limit the service rather than risk another miscategorization.
Is that not an example of human intervention in ML?
Yes, they can. They should simply stop measuring only positives, and start measuring negatives - e.g. people that press the back button of their browser, or click the second, third, fourth result afterwards...which should hint the ML classifiers that the first result was total crap in the first place.
But I guess this is exactly what happens if you have a business model where leads to sites where you provide ads give you a weird ethics, as your company profits from those scammers more than from legit websites.
From an ML point of view google's search results are the perfect example of overfitting. Kinda ironic that they lead the data science research field and don't realize this in their own product, but teach this flaw everywhere.
The fact that they do collect data does not mean that they use that data in any meaningful way or at all.
They ought to see humongous bounce rates with those fake SEOd pages. Normally, that would suggest shit tier quality and black-hat SEO, which is in theory punishable. Yet, they throw that data away and still rank those sites higher up.
You mean to say that no one at Google has even heard of "external SEO", which is nothing more than fancy way of saying link farming? They do know, this is punishable according to their own rules, yet it works, because either they cannot fix it or do not care to.
They'll never tell how they use the data for obvious reasons and I also can't go into any details. But any obvious thing you can think of almost certainly has been tried, they've been doing it for 20+ years and ranking alone is staffed with several hundreds of smart engineers. Mining clickthrough logs is a fairly old topic itself, has been around since at least early 2000s.
I worked in ranking for two major search engines. They all measure this, this is a really low hanging fruit - how much time it took you to come up with this idea? Why do you think so lowly of people who put decades of life into their systems that they didn't think of it?
Technically just open google serp in developer tools, network tab, set preserve/persist logs option, and watch the requests flowing back - all your clicks and back navigations are reported back for analysis. Same on other search engines. Only DDG doesn't collect your clicks/dwell time - but that's a distinguishing feature of their brand, they stripped themselves of this valuable data on purpose.
Again, this is not about data being collected, we do know how much data Google collects, it is all about what is being done with the data and by extension how good the end result is.
This touches the broader subject of systems engineering and especially validation. As far as I am aware, there are currently no tools/models for validation of machine learning models and the task gets exponentially harder with degrees of freedom given to the ML system. The more data Google collects and tries to use in ranking, the less bounded ranking task is and therefore less validatable, therefore more prone to errors.
Google is such a big player in search space that they can quantify/qualify behavior of their ranking system, publish that as SEO guidelines and have majority of good-faith actors behave in accordance, reinforcing the quality of the model - the more good-faith actors actively compete for the top spot, the more top results are of good-faith actors. However, as evidenced by the OP and other black hat SEO stories, the ranking system can be gamed and datums which should produce negative ranking score are either not weighted appropriately or in some cases contribute to positive score.
Google search results are notoriously plagued with Pinterest results, shop-looking sites which redirect to chinese marketplaces and similar. It looks like the only tool Google has to combat such actors is manual domain-based blacklisting, because, well, they would have done something systematic about it. It seems to me that the ranking algorithm at Google is given so many different inputs that it essentially lives its own life and changes are no longer proactive, but rather reactive, because Google does not have sufficient tools to monitor black hat SEO activity to punish sites accordingly.
So they do collect it, they only ignore it - just like the 10 - 30 (or more) clicks I've spent on the tiny tiny [x] in the top corner of scammy-looking-dating-site-slash-mail-order-bride ads that they served me for a decade?
My impression is that the ML algorithms at Google have the goal of increasing profitability from search. If that is the case, the quality of search will tend to be secondary to displaying pages that bring more revenue.
Since this is now the top spot here on H/N I suspect it just got the attention of some Googlers who I’m sure will review it.
They may not give the site a manual action, though. They’d rather tweak the algorithm so it naturally doesn’t rank. Google’s algo should be able to see stuff like this.
I know that I’ve seen sites tank in the rankings because they got too many links too quickly. It could be that the link part of the algorithm hasn’t fully analyzed the links yet.
I’d be interested in seeing what the Majestic link graph says about this site, ahrefs doesn’t have tier 2 and tier 3 link data.
The reason for rising inequality in the States is very clear: offshoring and automation. Historically, the rest of the world had much lower wages while it was difficult to move US jobs to other countries for political and logistical reasons. Once that was solved, manufacturing jobs were gone. US population shifted from manufacturing to service. Now the service jobs are being outsourced and automated in turn. The real picture is a bit more complex of course but it does not change the logic.
The right approach to taxation would be to tax the exact cause of the problem: offshoring and automation. It can be done as a progressive per-employee Value Added Tax. The normal VAT is a fixed percentage on the difference between revenue and non-labor expenses. The new P-VAT would grow with the added value per US employee. For instance, if a pizzeria has added value of $50k per employee per year, the P-VAT could be zero. For the likes of Google and Apple with millions of dollars of added value per employee it could be 50% or more.
It would create an incentive to keep the jobs in the US. Also, it would be very hard to avoid if a company wants access to US market.
But they are getting an unlicensed product. IMNAL, but if they are made aware of the fact and continue to use the product, wouldn't it be willful misconduct?
Then he was the product lead on the Chrome team. I don't know if it was him who lobbied Page to create Chrome.