I repeatedly tried "living in another search-engine" for a month at a time. I tried Bing, DDG and Yahoo. If I didn't search for something easy (like "population new york") the results were useless and superficial.
Searching for something like "programatically create credit memo magento" yielded the user documentation on how to create a credit memo while Googles first result was the relevant API page with the second being forum posts explaining how to do what I wanted.
If you need specific results and don't get them, you go back to Google.
I use DDG, but honestly still go to google a lot. The secret is DDG allows "bangs" -- !g in front of a query is a google search. It turns the Chrome omnibox into an even more powerful tool.
The reason is Google probably has 100x the money, and 1000x the expertise.
I love DuckDuckGo for their no-following and no-tracking you policy. I admire that and want to support them. But yet, I know that many, many of the queries are usually yield far better results on Google.
I'm just hoping that with time and enough people using DuckDuckGo, it will get a lot better.
I don't understand the negativity for GM/Ford on HN. I'd say with cruise / lyft partnership / sidecar acquisition they're way further along than anyone here seems to give them credit for.
It's very, very difficult to build a successful car company, especially one that can produce affordable cars at scale.
The technology for self-driving cars will become commoditized, just as the technology behind smartphones did. When that happens, it will be the companies like GM, Ford, VW, and Toyota that produce self-driving cars that people can afford at large scale.
Tesla wants to join that club, but their production scale is not anywhere near that of GM or Ford, and they are about to learn that the biggest obstacle to building millions of cars in multiple factories is not technology and production processes -- it is dealing with worker unionization and the local/national politics of the places they try to build factories in. This is something the large players like GM and Ford are good at, after decades of experience.
Tesla is also getting an easy ride because it has a lot of very happy shareholders right now. Imagine trying to surmount those challenges while angry activist shareholders are trying to get you to split the stock, or forcing out your CEO when the stock price is flat.
I think Ford and GM are bargain stock deals right now for people who want to invest in self-driving cars. Ford and GM are may not be the first to develop that technology, but they are probably going to build more self-driving cars than anyone else once the technology becomes available.
It seems that the sentiment for more alternative and "disruptive" ideas or businesses are the most welcomed here. It's a shame that people are missing indicators that the enterprise is < 10 years away from disrupting traditional software startups, software is becoming a commodity.
People in the Bay Area (and many people on HN fit this demographic culturally, if not literally) tend to be ethnocentric. I have met so many people that won't take a company seriously unless it is headquartered locally, including at least 2 people who didn't believe me that Amazon was based in Seattle. There is a huge misunderstanding of the auto industry and since people do not understand it they tend to discredit it. This hubris is largely why Google and Apple attempted to build their own cars, and after failing decided to pursue other routes (Waymo partnering with Chrysler and Apple doing who knows what). There is an incredible arrogance in the Bay Area, and denizens tend to think they are smarter and able to disrupt the rest of the world (much like this https://xkcd.com/1831/).
As HN becomes more popular it inevitably becomes more cliquish. While I commend dang on his typically excellent moderation, it is inevitable that with more people and a voting system that a hivemind effect will develop.
Since I'm sure people will criticize me for being new here, this is not my original account and I have been here for a while.
Well they hired people and then fired them, so whatever you want to call that. I have a friend that was at Google and a friend that was at Apple, each was laid off because they no longer want to manufacture cars, which is why they were hired. Also Google actually did manufacture those weird small cars that they've been using for some time, and decided they don't want to mass manufacture them.
they are trying to buy their way into innovation
however they dont have any attractor for that of their own - not a real economic opportunity behind them. just a bunch of leftover money. 'talent acquisition' looks too much like yahoo. companies need an adhesive, typically an enormously strong forcing function caused by economic currents. it can be other things, like a magnetic leader etc.
GM has none of that, only gubermint bailout money
so while that is going to get somewhere (since they have a lot of it) I would assume they will still be outcompeted by other companies with stronger attractors (econ opportunities, PR, ..) and movers (like mission/aspriations, inspriation, arbiters of quality, ..)
and of course there is the negative sentiment about it beeing illegitimate, unearned, perhaps undeserved if epistemology swings that way, because of the above
