The "Google Alert" comment feels unnecessarily dismissive of a legitimate user concern.
The core issue for many, myself included, is not about asking a search engine to make "geopolitical judgments" in its search rankings. Rather, it's a question of corporate ethics in selecting business partners. The decision of which companies to partner with and fund is inherently separate from the algorithm that ranks search results.
> Google's been 98% spam for well over a year now.
I find this hard to believe. How do you even measure for this?
I'd love to see a few more examples of searches you are making that show spam, because the example you gave provided me with the appropriate results. I almost suspect you are either being disingenuous or just have some malware on your computer.
"This search engine I've gone out of my way to not track my search, viewing or other habits and usage is showing me irrelevant ads! Fucking trash!"
They'll complain at the thought of paying for YT premium ("the internet should be free bro! Except my new SaaS calendar app, of course"), pirate Factorio, pay for kagi. A real eclectic bunch.
I see this all the time these days and always wonder how many people making these comments have their own monetized apps, or have done any work on monetization, etc.
> As Reuters reported on Monday, the reasoning boils down to this: according to the judge, Sonos wrongly linked a pair of patent applications in 2019 to a much earlier provisional application from 2006 in an attempt to claim “a priority date before Google’s disclosures and product releases” that would thus put Google under “a cloud of infringement.” Sonos is also said to have discreetly made amendments to the documents, which greatly frustrated the judge.
If this is true, Sonos needs to be punished for such behavior. They clearly abused the patent system for their benefit, I'm surprised this wasn't brought up during the initial trial. Maybe it was, but I don't recall anyone discussing it.
Left Google on Friday, it's nice to be able to say this openly.
Though, I should at least clarify I had nothing to do with anything close to this, and don't have any information on it that I could have received from working at Google.
This was an incredibly crappy lawsuit and whatever Sonos claimed was repeated unquestioned, universally.
Sonos way over-reacted to the idea of speakers with assistants in them and made it seem existential, hence this sudden rush in 2019. I had just invested in their system, and never ever will invest in Sonos equipment again, solely due to this. Both my Pixel and Sonos got worse because Sonos' leadership needed to stroke their confirmation bias that they were in competition with Google.
> Left Google on Friday [...] crappy lawsuit and whatever Sonos claimed was repeated unquestioned, universally.
Type "sonos" into the HN search at the bottom -> click first result about patent claim -> top comment in that thread says "Not here to defend Google, but how can something trivial like that even be patentable?" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29890921
The replies to that comment are in similar vein. The next top-level reply is also critical of Sonos albeit not related to patents ("you don't own the speakers you have bought"). Scrolling some more, I don't see anyone supporting Sonos or repeating their claim, not even with questioning, let alone universally.
Moving to the next relevant search result, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29831929, the top comment leads with some links to the patents so people can find what is actually being discussed, then says "I'm a big fan of Sonos products but this ruling won't go through, right?" The direct reply is "[quote from patent] This one in particular seems way too broad." The next top-level comment complains about this being why Android lost some functionality (maybe not taking a side I guess, but more leaning towards Google than Sonos), with the next top-level comment having a similar message: "It sounds like an absolute nightmare for users".
If you remember Sonos' patent claims as having been universally defended by people, that may have been seen from behind a certain filter or bubble
Anyway, I don't know that saying "I'm team Sonos" or "I'm team Google" helps a discussion in the first place. I'd discuss the thing on merits
> Anyway, I don't know that saying "I'm team Sonos" or "I'm team Google" helps a discussion in the first place. I'd discuss the thing on merits
I agree! For the record, I didn't say either of those things :) Apologies, but I don't see team or identifying with either.
Sorry if I missed it.
> Sonos' patent claims as having been universally defended by people, that may have been seen from behind a certain filter or bubble
I'm guessing it was "universally" that inspired you: apologies, I definitely did not mean everyone, not even everyone on the internet, not even everyone on HN! Just a throwaway word in a flow of typing: brains are weird like that.
It means a lot to me that someone put in so much effort to make sure to understand there wasn't a false dichotomy here. You're, no exaggeration, a hero for standing up when people do this. Drives me nuts too.
FWIW, you didn't have to put in that much work, as short as "Universally?" would have sufficed. (apologies if I misunderstand: I'm not sure exactly what led to the strong, helpful, contribution, but I'm assuming that the root was 'universally')
Not just the universally, it's also that it doesn't seem like unquestioned to me. Though I'm sure one would be able to find subgroups taking Sonos' side if one went looking beyond popular opinions
We don’t know how many assumptions Megan made or even who was testifying and what they assumed or what evidence was presented in court. Yes, that’s problematic.
Agreed a few months ago I had multiple daily conversations with ChatGPT. Anymore I might open it once in a day if that and usually just for some "generate a short presidential speech about why (this song) is cool" or something.
Stable Diffusion is a different story I'm constantly generating something but it's more about playing with the tech than actually making a meaningful product for me. I just enjoy seeing what cool stuff I can make it do.
The core issue for many, myself included, is not about asking a search engine to make "geopolitical judgments" in its search rankings. Rather, it's a question of corporate ethics in selecting business partners. The decision of which companies to partner with and fund is inherently separate from the algorithm that ranks search results.