doomslice

Google's internal tooling for this is actually way behind what's available to the general public (they just got access to Claude though!)

It's not self driving though... people should stop pretending it is. It's driving assist. Think of it as a slightly better lane-keep and adaptive cruise control (which often require intervention in stock configuration).

Let's say you have 100000 documents in your index that match your query but only 10 of them the user has access to:

A basic implementation will return the top, let's say 1000, documents and then do the more expensive access check on each of them. Most of the time, you've now eliminated all of your search results.

Your search must be access aware to do a reasonable job of pre-filtering the content to documents the user has access to, at which point you then can apply post-filtering with the "100% sure" access check.

Well if you don’t have a pretty good idea of the problem you’re solving for the customer, you’re much better off trying as many things as you can, quickly and cheaply, to figure out.

Do you know that the big expensive thing is what your customers actually need? Do you actually know what your customers need?

That’s basically the only important context. If you can’t deliver that, it doesn’t matter how well thought through, extensible, or scalable it is.

Did they remove it? It says the researchers provided a notebook that they used to verify the attack.

Or do I…

All this setting does is make the feature available to you in the frontend -- it's up to you to use it or not!

In adtech a first price auction is also a single round.

You gotta save that optimization for when performance ends up on a top level OKR!

… ten minutes later.

I'm not defending this at all, but one of the reasons why there are no (or few) humans that can be contacted is that they* said that it was tried before and it caused a lot more issues with mistakes/takeovers due to social engineering.

* Can't remember who said it but it was at a town hall this year

This was maybe 8 or so years ago so I'm not sure what else this unnamed ticketing company added since... but permissions were pretty lax at that point and had JUST started to tighten up.

Oh I forgot to mention that Apple rejected the iPhone version of the app at first because we didn't make it clear enough that we were tracking their locations like this. Our head of product at the time just called someone up at Apple and it got approved with no changes. It all stunk.

Yes the ticketing app that people were required to use to get into the events.

A ticketing company was experimenting with BLE beacons to trigger things like seat upgrades and coupons when people walked by certain things in a venue… or at least that’s what they said it would be used for.

Instead they covered LA Live and surrounding area with them and then just sold that data to… well I’m not sure who since I left shortly after they did that.

The justification was “but we put it in the TOS and Privacy Policy”.

They cut non-business critical travel which many employees for some reason felt was a perk of the job. I heard second hand that some employees would do "office tours" just to try the lunches at the different offices (under the guise of doing some in person meetings that certainly could have been done online). Cutting that kind of wasteful travel is necessary in an economic slowdown (and even necessary before that).

Whether intentional or not, the way you presented these (including the one about CGI) is how these sorts of conspiracies get wings and spread.

"Oh of course this is not true... except for maybe this little sliver here..."

That's the thing that gets latched onto and eventually the conspiracy nuts argue the whole thing must be true.

All the surrounding areas of Ann Arbor are reasonably priced. I live in Dexter (working remote) and love it here. Close enough to go to Ann Arbor whenever I want but far enough away to get a big house and lots of land.

They sometimes (often) have "last look" -- so a bunch of companies compete to win an auction against each other, and then Google gets a chance to win against the winner of those. This means that Google can essentially maximize the profit they receive if they have a better bid, because they know exactly how much fee they can take without losing. Everyone else on the other hand, has to compete with _lower_ fees so they can win that first round of the auction.

We use GCPs equivalent of spot instances (preemptibles) to great effect as well. It actually works better at larger scale since a smaller % of your machines get preempted at a given time.

Point taken.

Your statement is equally factually unsupported and I have apparently taken the bait.

Unneeded except by the people that you know... needed it.

You're talking about this one right? https://atlasheadrest.com/products/headrest-for-remastered-a...

This is the reason they're introducing FLoC in the first place: https://www.chromium.org/Home/chromium-privacy/privacy-sandb...

There's two sides to the equation though (I work on Supply Side ad tech).

There's a huge amount of content that people are just not willing to pay for, but would gladly view ads. You may be willing to pay for Youtube Premium and Twitch Plus or whatever, but the vast majority of people do not.

Do I feel like I'm a horrible person because I help make websites more money so they can stay in business? Heck no. It's the only reason 90% of these sites are able to exist in the first place.

That's one way to look at it, and certainly a view that many share -- but isn't that more likely to attract regulatory scrutiny instead of deflect it?

I sit in on many of these W3C meetings (I'm not from Google) and the discussion is always "given that we want to achieve X definition of privacy (where X varies depending on the proposal), how can we mitigate some of the fallout that will happen". It's never "how can we defeat these privacy measures that are going to be put into place so we can keep the status quo".

You can argue that advertising is a net negative for the web or that it's evil or whatever you want, but if you frame it as "how can we take steps to make things more private for end users without completely destroying the way business on the web make money" then I think the current path is a reasonable one.

I don't think that's an accurate representation at all. Look through the proposals and see, for instance, that it goes beyond anything that Firefox is planning to do.

Dropping third party cookies is just one small piece of it.

Just as a reminder, Google is also planning to drastically improve privacy through a sandbox in Chrome: https://www.chromium.org/Home/chromium-privacy/privacy-sandb...

FLoC (and FLEDGE, and PARAKEET, and a million other bird proposals) is being used as a way to mitigate some of the loss that publishers and advertisers will see when those privacy measures are put into place.

The parent you responded to is suggesting that hard-shutdowns at a certain time are a way to help prevent that. Shut it down at a set time and don't turn it back on until later.

You won't be as tempted to just pop in for a few minutes of work here or there to respond to some chats or emails.

I can't downvote yet, but your comment doesn't add much to the discussion and is very hard to understand. And your edit is likely to attract even more downvotes since it just completely detracts from anything you were trying to get across.