skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Captialism is a carrot-on-a-stick engine for generating prosperity. The carrot is the wealth and glory of winning. You outcompete all other players, you're the only game in town, you get to set the rules.

Except the carrot is only dangling on the stick and as a donkey, you're not allowed to ever get it - because the moment you do, you stop moving forward. Hence it's imperative to a) convince people they can win, and b) ensure they don't. Because it's not the players that are socially useful, but the game itself.
Not 100% but I thought that android asks you the first time you click on a maps/wiki etc link would you rather use browser or app and whether you want to do it once or always.
I agree with you that choice is good. That is kinda why I proposed my very simplistic solution of Google offering two ways of searching. One stream which tightly integrates with the Google Ecosystem which would be a plus for many people (like myself) and another where they just give you the results without any integration.
The problem too is that the competing services aren’t even that good. For example, if I search for a specific type of Miele oven from here in France, I can type the model number and Google gives me an array of choices from various stores it was awesome. If Google didn’t do that, then what results should it return? A bunch of other shopping sites on which I would do the exact same thing but not have the same quality of results? French comparison services just outright suck. The interfaces are barely a step up from Minitel.

I am definitely not a Google fanboy; I don’t like Android and I’m not big into their cloud apps, but when it comes to search, they are the best. EU companies could try and compete but they haven’t. Has any EU company tried to build a high quality search experience? If they aren’t succeeding then why?

The problem in France, as I see it is government. As an example, DailyMotion rivaled YouTube for a short time, as soon as DailyMotion was about to be acquired for a huge sum by Yahoo, the French government blocked the sale because Yahoo wasn’t French. That immediately sent a signal that if you put a lot of VC/investment into a French company, your exits were subject to the whims of a protectionist government bureaucracy, which makes investing in French companies relatively more risky than investing in American companies in terms of ROI.

Did the DailyMotion deal contribute to the current Google dominance? I think it definitely had a chilling effect on high growth unicorn chasing in the EU which means the “French Google” hasn’t been born because it is much much harder to access funding than a similarly positioned company in the US. I am not saying the French startup scene is dead or bad, but the ultra-high level moonshots that are fairly common in the US are extremely rare in France because of the bureaucratic environment. Blah Blah Car raises $200 million against a $1.6b valuation, but that is pretty much an outlier and likely the result of an investor play against Uber’s French difficulties.

My point: if the EU wants to prevent monopoly situations, member states ought to be doing more to get out of the way of innovation. They can do that by lowering taxes. Even if you have a winning investment in France, an investor gets butchered in capital gains taxes thus requiring a 10x investment to actually be a 25x investment to be worth it. With such a low hit rate for VCs in general what incentive do they have to kneecap themselves by investing in places like France?
Good point- Airports and movie theaters with their super high pricing come to mind.

Although in this case, the monopoly example would be akin to a hospital or gas station in a small town raising prices 3x and saying if you don't want to pay, go to the next town.
Europe vs. Silicon Valley: Behind Enemy Lines with Margrethe Vestager
With any luck this might make google rethink their strategy on AMP page prioritisation
Competitors in another market even, in this case shopping.
AMP is open to implement (or copy) for anybody with Google-scale datacenters, not for any company.

From the official site: "The Google AMP Cache is a proxy-based content delivery network for delivering all valid AMP documents."
In other words, you are welcome to tie yourself to Google infrastructure, not merely to a proprietary software platform that you can at least use on your own (like Windows etc. in the Microsoft antitrust cases).
Because the first page (at least above the fold) is literally all adds, for many searches.
I think the GP is complaining about how the rules are structured so that you can never win.

And it's true - they are. By design.
https://github.com/saneyuki/option-t.js :)
To be serious, title describes article accurately. Click bait style of title is a side effect.
TIL building products that make money (as opposed to pre-revenue VC-funded CRUD apps) with a team that enjoys their job and can be home by 4 every day is not "real development."
Fixer: A new startup from the creators of GrubHub 1.0
You're acting like the outcome of this decision was in any way predictable based on the "rules of the EU"

It was. There are specific requirements in Article 102 about abusing dominant market positions to "apply…dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage".

If I owned a website that had a search engine and comparison shopping and email, I would not expect that it's somehow wrong if my search engine shows results from my service's comparison shopping and email.

If you owned a massive market-dominating service, then your team of corporate lawyers should expect that.

"You have to design new technology and build custom services that show business information for your competitors on your advertising/websites/properties"?

That's not what happened though – the specific instruction is:

the Decision orders Google to comply with the simple principle of giving equal treatment to rival comparison shopping services and its own service

That's all, and it is not unreasonable to impose these terms of a market dominating force that has used that dominance to crowd out competition.

What precedent is there for imposing rules this this on other businesses?

SO MUCH. http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm
No it's not so you will click it. They collect the data from customers and offer it to the advertisers. The data is a big part of the product they sell to advertisers: targeting advertising. They don't sell user clicks (why would anyone pay for that?), they sell targeted advertising.
Winning means end of the game. Hence the game doesn't allow anyone to win - because what the society needs is not the players to win, but for the game to go on and players to play.
How do you get there? USA requires visa even for transfers, and most flights to the Bahamas originate or stop over in the USA, bringing the issue back to square 1.
ESCORT SITES – Greece Athens Escorts
And if you invited people into your house, and they came of their free will, then you surely got them into your house legally?

Yes, you did. And now you have the de-facto monopoly over the key for the front door. So, what could be wrong with asking for half their life savings if they want to be let out?
There's also this parabolic solar camp stove I spotted on the REI site a few months ago. Seems like an absolute gimmick, but the few reviews are all very positive:

https://www.rei.com/product/100561/gosun-sport-solar-camp-st...
>People aren't forced to use Google.

This argument is silly. No you are not forced to use google, but a majority of internet users don't even know they are using google when searching. They also don't know there are alternatives.
That's a glib answer. Google is free to continue doing business in the EU and is does not 'have no choice but to pay up'. That's simple.
I guess the web doesn’t count?
> This seems like a bit of a troll?

Umm, no, thats the accepted reason why the territory was split in two instead of becoming a state outright.

From Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakota_Territory because apparently one must link history or be called a troll.

> Admission of new western states was a party political battleground with each party looking at how the proposed new states were likely to vote. At the beginning of 1888, the Democrats under president Grover Cleveland proposed that the four territories of Montana, New Mexico, Dakota and Washington should be admitted together. The first two were expected to vote Democratic and the latter two were expected to vote Republican so this was seen as a compromise acceptable to both parties. However, the Republicans won majorities in Congress and the Senate later that year. To head off the possibility that Congress might only admit Republican territories to statehood, the Democrats agreed to a less favorable deal in which Dakota was divided in two and New Mexico was left out altogether. Cleveland signed it into law on February 22, 1889 and the territories could become states in nine months time after that. However, incoming Republican president Benjamin Harrison had a problem with South Dakota; most of the territory was Sioux reservation land and the state would not be viable unless much of this land became available to settlers

> And North and South California are massively different, yet lo-and-behold they are the same state.

Yet they're the same state today, and North and South Dakota are not. Are you proposing we merge these lesser states together and allow California to be the one state to have separations due primarily to population? Just so that it is more "fair" for Californian Senate inputs? The reason for the senate being 2 per state was to allow each state equal voting ability amongst states so that populated states couldn't easily override less populated states.
> > Few more iOS iterations, and I think I'll switch to Android.

> That will probably solve everything. /s

It actually could. On Android, he can make his own LineageOS-based build and implement a completely custom UI.
If you spend time with people who really have to make decisions before spending money, you'll find they don't use Apple gear because they can't afford it and to them it would be a luxury.

I'd also disagree about luxury glitz. Apple has continued to make devices with shiny aluminum shells. It's not importantly more robust (in fact it dents quite easily) and it's a lot heavier than other choices, whether plastic or magnesium and carbon fibre. It's all part of their image. There are many other ways Apple conveys a luxury image.
I wouldn't really say so:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/3a/44/84/3a4484bdb...

http://media.architecturaldigest.com/photos/56cb8425cd3bcb32...

http://historylists.org/images/nathan-g-moore-house.jpg

https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/7024761/El...

https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/7025319/Pe...

http://midcenturyhome.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Frank-L...
I don't need to be a US citizen to agree with this statement. I am an EU citizen living in the EU and to be honest I think this fine is BS.

The company who initiated this lawsuit is http://www.foundem.co.uk/.

This website looks like absolute shit, it doesn't even render properly on mobile, but hey, if they fail they just blame Google search for their mistakes and the EU backs it without second thoughts after the US has fined VW recently for actual fraud.
It's not just customer choice. They have all the classical barriers for entry for anyone trying to provide similar product quality. Even if someone manages to beat them temporarily, Google can compete with prices (of ads typically) so low that they can't make profits but Google can. They bleed out anyone trying to compete.

Economies of scale, network externalities and vertical and horizontal integration means that popular internet services are king of the hill type business. Bigger and larger translates to smaller cost per user, cheaper ads and higher quality. There can be only few really big players and they create natural barriers to entry for anyone else.

All classical barriers of entry apply to Google, FB, Amazon:

* Economies scale production

* Limit pricing

* High set-up costs

* High sunk costs

* Advertising

* brand loyalty

* vertical integration

* horizontal integration
I'm not sure if the actual format is relevant in a court of law, as long as anybody is capable of producing the format.

For example, Google is already favoring HTML above, say, TXT pages. Demanding TXT to be shown as high as HTML in search results doesn't make much sense.
I wish there would be a similar reaction to Google "skewing" searches in general towards what seems to be the most popular and highly-SEO'd, but also not very useful nor informative sites. When searching for more obscure things I sometimes have to go beyond 3-4 pages to find the good content, repeat with small variations of the query, etc. I often even go to the "last" page of results, without finding anything (and think to myself, "this is the Internet, where all of human knowledge is supposed to be; and yet, why can't I find anything about X?") I also seem to trigger the "you may be a bot" CAPTCHA more frequently than before.

Of course, that's unlikely to happen because there's no money in it...

IMHO the usefulness of Google as a search engine has decreased rather noticeably within the past few years. It's become less precise, less thorough (they've always been inflating the result count, but recently it seems worse), and nearly hostile to those "advanced seekers" who know exactly what they're looking for. I still remember, many years ago, discovering new and interesting "corners" of the Internet with Google. If Fravia were still alive, he may have something similar to say.

To a huge majority of the Internet-using population, Google is the Internet. It holds a huge amount of power in controlling the information people can find, and that's absolutely scary. It's something that governments have always wanted.
This is similiar to goals of http://codekata.com/ except, this focuses on design, while Code Katas are more focused on algorithms.
A fine of this scale sets a dangerous precedent. How hard would it be wrong everything that Google has built with the same logic? Aren't inline word-meanings hurting revenues of the dictionary sites? How about currency conversions?
Like hell they do(have a monopoly)! there are plenty of other searchengines out there, and ther is nothing that forces you towards google (unlike some other services, all search engines are available everywhere, barring government censorship in some countries)

try Bing.com, duckduckgo.com, or even yahoo.com (and there are many more)

and then tell me google is the one that should be sued because of the results in their searchengine

A really hate when people confuse "better than everyone else,with margins" with "has a monopoly". It's not even like their searchengine gets pushed on computerbuyers by the software installed by default, since that software would normally be windows with accompanying browsers, that all try to push Bing.com as their default search engines...

but people use google anyway because they generate the best results to searches, if they stop doing that, there's nothing to stop everyone from switching, that's why they have to keep it good. there's no lock-in.

what really pisses me of with these decisions is that if you replace "google" and "alphabet" with placeholder-names, none of their arguments holds water to any reader. try it yourself! ;)
It's just a recording.
In my opinion the mainstream AI startups are described in article, mainstream AI startup = unique data + algorithms. I think it is good to not be in AI startup mainstream and work on things that maybe won't make you rich but will make you happy.
Is this the same as https://www.passwordstore.org/?
Keep calm and use SOCKS5: Telegram tells how to bypass blocking of messenger
They had a net income of 23 Billion Dollars in 2016, so the one-time fine alone is approx. 10% of their net income last year. The daily fine of 5% of daily worldwide revenue would amount to approx. 20% of their daily worldwide net income (using the 90 Billion from Wikipedia as worldwide revenue and 23 Billion as net income).

Since the EU is likely more than just 10%/20% of their income, they still make some money here, but I doubt that it was worth it for Froogle…
I've also been thinking that the world needs to begin banning American software.

We already know that the totalitarian government that it's becoming is a threat to the privacy and rights of people worldwide. Avoid censorship and surveillance. Look for and build alternatives.

Nothing better to change deep rooted policy rot than economics?
Build – simple makefile-based build system for C/C++ programs
It currently shows "Error 403 - This web app is stopped".

Cached website (with broken styling):

- https://web.archive.org/web/20170524092125/https://www.engri...

- https://web.archive.org/web/20170625113108/https://www.engri...

Actual extension:

- https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/engrip-extension/m...

- https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/engrip-tracke...

I still don't quite get what it does exactly, and why would i want to use it.
Bangor Savings Bank moving to a new campus
> AMP is open to implement (or copy) for anybody with Google-scale datacenters, not for any company.

But doesn't it hold for any market, that as technology advances, the barriers to entry become larger?
At first, I was surprised about southern BC, but then it could be that it's so awesome there that people don't want to move.
What's wrong with pgAdmin4?
I think the right way to do what you're asking is to serve Google specific content to users that are logged in to their Google account. This should be easy to justify legally as well.
This is far too much of a simplification of (grand)Parent.

you don't know the circumstances that 30 year old programmer with a 2 year old child at home is facing. You could also be like certain firms and immediately nix him on the "merits" of ageism.

A female programmer might have travelled 2000 miles to just receive an abstraction question out of left-field over an irrelevant concept to the job. She flew out on this uncertainty, and she's in a rather discriminatory field.

26 year old dev has probably built CRUD apps all his short career. and, you're asking him to implement (isBinarySearchTree Boolean) on a whiteboard on the spot.
Nope.

Users have no motivation and/or knowledge to go elsewhere (they might not have been looking for a price comparison site in the first place)

Competing stores can't go elsewhere because users don't go elsewhere.

Even if your accepted the argument, what's to keep Bing/Yandex/Weibo/etc from doing the same to promote their respective stores?
With power comes responsibility.

I think they gladly pay the fine.

What would be the nuclear disaster would be a low that requires them to share user interactions with other search engine operators, so they can also improve their results.
DevOps Pulse 2017 Survey Is Open for Respondents
Okay say that this is true, then if you want any sort of decent user experience you MUST let Google track you and analyze your behavior. So many ways for Google to win. So many ways for the user to lose. I do run a bunch of stuff on my Firefox to prevent that, perhaps that's a reasonable explanation as to why.

Google owns the server, Google owns the client, Google owns DNS, Google owns domains, Google even owns > 50% of mobile. It's way too much ownership under one roof.
I wonder how many competitors and established providers were driven out of the market because of Google's practice.

This fine isn't nearly enough, as Google will have earned much more than that and stands to earn a lot more in the future, simply because they used their overwhelming market share to kill off competitors. They'll just do it again and again because in the long term it profits them way more than playing fair.
Is this the power of Hackernews I wonder? If so I am impressed.
Domain Driven Design and typed functional programming in TypeScript
But that's not what GP was saying.

We, today, have the ability to dictate what others tomorrow over- or under-appreciate as doom and gloom. Whether there is a cognitive dissonance is irrelevant, but what actually happens is very much only avoidable going forward, not looking back.
I started last year with 10k in the bank and ended with around 100k. I know I made 30k or so from various unrelated stuff, but the 20% number is realistic.
Adverts and also vapid content-mill sites.
I haven't seen an ad on desktop for years thanks to adblock. But mobile is getting pretty awful, true.
A fake treaty based on hype and slogans. whose temperature goals when overlaid with existing models shows no change. a fake treaty which allows each nation to set their own goals, change them at will, and no fines or similar mechanisms to insure compliance? A treaty which then veered off into rules on gender equity, biodiversity, disabled people, migrants, and a just transition of work forces.

as in, it was propaganda act by politicians who used ignorance of what it stood for so you would think they were doing something about it when they were doing absolutely nothing. it had no power of enforcement because they could not even come to an agreement of who would be allowed to enforce it. when you let the fox set the rules the chickens outcome does not change.

it was worse than no treaty. with no treaty people can be brought back to the table and iron out one that has limits that apply equally to all nations with an agreed to enforcement. (per capita limits are the means some countries used to skirt any impact they have on the world)
According to the press release, Google went into the product comparison sector and took about 80% of the pie without competing with other product comparison engines, instead they just used their dominant position in search.

If they had competed and won this share fairly, they wouldn't get a fine.

Remember that EU, during these years was consistently the largest, or the second largest, depending on year, economy of the world, so this 80% is huge and justifies the size of the fine.
If they didn't benefit, if using those services were a net loss, then people wouldn't be using them.

Also, I like to draw a line between monopolies imposed by force (eg taxi offering horrible services making competitors illegal through licensing) and those used by people voluntarily because they enjoy the services. Google is used voluntarily, because people enjoy it, like Microsoft during the 90's. As I read elsewhere, Microsoft lost relevance to tech because OSS took servers, web took applications and mobile took the client. Antitrust didn't do much.

With Google, the only thing the EU is doing right now is forcing Google to offer a lower quality service. What should make Google less useful should be innovators making them less relevant and ubiquitous like the web, OSS and mobile did to Microsoft. iOS and Siri already made Google Search much less relevant on mobile, I'm sure there will be more in the future. Monopolies used voluntarily usually don't last long unless they keep innovating, but if they do keep innovating then forcing them to offer lower quality services seems really bad and it doesn't motivate other people to out-innovate them if the government will just help make Google worse, we all lose. Innovation should be bottom up, not top down.
Multi-domain predictive AI or how to make one thing predict another
Are you sure? This is the company who initiated the lawsuit: http://www.foundem.co.uk/

By looking at the website do you think they were disadvantaged in Google search because of Google's monopoly or perhaps for MANY other reasons? I mean it doesn't even render on mobile...
But actually how close is the bowl to a parabola?