A browser does not send 10k requests per minute to open a webpage. Even in the most and modern bloated webpages. And even if it did it wouldn't be to a single website.
A user operating a scraper or a crawler IS operating a scraper or a crawler.
Google overview frequently cites webpages that don't include the keywords of a query.
This is Google, the most used search engine in the world, made by a company that is at the forefront of AI development.
ChatGPT, Claude, etc,. constantly generate answers without sources and rarely cite anything verbatim. I'm not sure if they could cite something verbatim even if they wanted.
Essentially none of these tools are appropriate for information.
To put things in perspective, I used to dunk on crypto because of how dysfunctional and how people kept losing money in scams, hacks, or even by accident.
I no longer dunk on crypto.
Not because crypto got better, but because the joke got old. I got tired of dunking on it.
You can't "move money into an offline crypto wallet that is not online at all."
If "money" i.e. crypto "currency" is in a crypto "wallet" then it is online. Anyone with the key and an Internet connection can transfer it at any time.
The wording is confusing because to someone who doesn't know how cryptocurrencies work it sounds like you can simply "take the crypto offline and put it into a physical device" as if it was a file. But that's not how it works. The physical key merely contains the actual key for the always-online wallet.
It's true that anyone with the key and an Internet connection can move money out of a crypto wallet at any time, but the point of the cold wallet is that they don't get the key because it's kept on a computer (or other storage medium) that is physically offline and disconnected from the Internet. Same reason government intelligence agencies use a SCIF for any important information work: you keep the information physically disconnected from the Internet.
of course you can move crypto currency to an offline wallet and by offline I mean its private key is held in some physical form/device that is not connected to the network.
Only spending from that wallet needs online access to private key - depositing to it does not.
The growth doesn't need to be from Search. Even with the current level of search growth, Google's total revenue is up 25% year on year, operating income is up 30% year on year.
You are wrong. Search is already profitable. It doesn't need to become more profitable. The profits can simply be used to improve the profitability of other offerings like Google Cloud.
That’s not the way Wallstreet thinks. They insist on continuing growth, year over year. Accelerating growth, even.
If you don’t show growth every year, then your stock tanks because you can’t show them the profit that they would make through buying your stock today and then selling it next year.
Yes and... parent was making the aggregate conglomerate profitability growth case instead of the single-product one.
Wall Street generally cares about the former more, unless the single-product is only-product.
In this case, that's the fundamental question about Google: is it only an ad company (in which case those numbers are the only ones that matter) or more (in which case total corporate revenue is more important)?
For Wall Street, I think they feel like Google/Alphabet is just an advertising company.
Everything else is an also-ran, and doesn’t materially affect anything, unless it costs a huge amount and doesn’t provide a suitable ROI. And here, AI and mega data centers would definitely be a problem — way too much capex, not nearly enough ROI.
I had forgotten about that. I also had some of my questions rewritten by other users. That felt so ridiculous. If there is something to add, add in a comment? Why is anyone even able to rewrite what others wrote? Who thought this was a good idea?
Comments are not for extended discussion. The important relevant information that was here has been moved to a confusing different page where it will never be seen again.
> Already, it’s better than other Q&A sites, because you don’t have to read through a lot of discussion to find the right answer, if it’s in there somewhere.
> Indeed, you can’t even have a discussion. A lot of people come to Stack Overflow, not knowing what to expect, and try to conduct a discussion when they should be answering the question. The trouble here is that answers are always listed in order of votes, not chronologically, so the discussion instantly becomes scrambled when the votes start coming in.
> Instead, we have editing. Once you’ve earned a little bit of reputation in the system (and there are all kinds of ways to earn reputation), you can edit questions and answers.
> ...
> There are lots of good ways to edit things. You can improve spelling, grammar, and even copy edit any question or answer to make it better. After all, for the next 20 years, this question will be the canonical place on the web where programmers will come to find out about enlarging fizzbars without overwriting snibbits. Anything you can do to clarify, explain, or improve the question or the answer will be a public service. If there’s code in the answer, you can debug it, refactor it, or tweak it to make it better.
> You can also improve on the answers. If an answer is incomplete, expand on it. If an answer has a bug in it or is obsolete, you can edit it and fix it. Because Q&A in Stack Overflow are editable, you can safely link to a Stack Overflow permalink knowing it will always have a good answer. Stack Overflow won’t have the problem of other sites where obsolete or incorrect answers have high Google PageRank simply because they’ve been on the Internet for so long. If someone finds a security bug in an answer, it can be fixed… it won’t keep coming up in Google’s results for years and years poisoning future code.
And yet I often tried to edit questions or answers to fix broken formatting and was blocked because I changed too few characters! Only major edits allowed!
But who is reading those tests? Tests to code LOC was 0.15:1 because humans only tested that 0.15. Now you are assuming that the test the machine wrote actually covers the features that should be tested.
Depending on machine-generated tests that nobody reads isn't better than having poorer coverage. The only thing that is guaranteed is that that mass of code returns "true" with the current implementation and "false" if the implementation changes in some ways. Unless people actually read the LLM-generated code, it's impossible to know if it tests anything that actually matters or just tests the same code path that would never be actually used in production in 5 different ways.
This is such an amazing take... if "training" an LLM with a book is fine, if you rewrite the book with slightly different wording... are you plagiarizing it? if you are then every application of AI over trained data of that trained data is plagiarizing?
Say you have this Math book and you rewrite it from third to first person and then replace all the sine examples with cosine and modify the exercises to have different numbers... is it stealing? you can buy 1 book, "train on it" and then generate your "personal original approved copy"
A user operating a scraper or a crawler IS operating a scraper or a crawler.
reply