Okay, the number is a bit off.
Do you actually work for a living? $100,000 a year doesn't equate to $8,333 a month in take-home pay. Try deducting FICA, Social Security, Medicare, and local taxes. That gives you about $4,600 take-home per month. Oh, don't forget insurance premiums and 401(k)/IRA contributions so you can one day afford one day in the far future to retire, so say $4,000 / month take-home.
Rent is more like $3,000 / month, then add electricity, water, trash, insurance, telephone, and Internet.
The rest, if you can find it, can be used to eat. God help you if you need to buy clothes, get anything dry cleaned, buy furniture, pay medical deductibles, etc.
And you can have all my base while you are at it.
Google hasn't been a functional search engine in about a decade.
Perhaps by your very narrow definition. But it's vastly better than it was at finding what people are looking for, which is what they always wanted, regardless of terminology.
However, it's *not* as good at "keyword regexp bingo" as it used to be. But if you're still trying to use those old-style queries, you're doing it wrong. Try typing complete natural language questions for what you want to find. I find this works amazingly well, even on obscure technical topics which include lots of "keywords" which are heavily overloaded in other contexts.
By "merely", I meant C (and HLL's) didn't originate the idea.
I'm not sure what you mean by "less good". You seemed to agree there's a trade-off between optimizing for "machine" resources/time, and abstraction/discipline/consistency/clarity. "Good" would then be relative to needs, such as business requirements/goals.
Fake News! It was Photoshopped in a Kenyan Sharia lab!
The underlying problem is Google is supposed to be a *search engine* It's supposed to show you where to find stuff on the internet. At some point in time they decided to complete with Ask Jeeves and become an "answer engine." Good luck with that.
It has always been an answer engine, and that's the reason it became popular.
Back in the day (mid 90s) most everyone was certain that search engines could never be very useful. Lycos, Altavista, etc. weren't terrible, but they also weren't very good, because although they could effectively spider the whole web that just meant that any search matched thousands or millions of pages, and they had no way to determine which of those were the best answers for the query. The "smart money" was betting on Yahoo!'s approach of manually curating enormous lists of links.
Then Larry Page's pagerank algorithm found an excellent (not perfect, but excellent) way to figure out which of all of those answers were likely to be the best ones. That insight launched Google. It took off precisely because it provided better answers, rather than just returning a list of everything that was on the Internet. A list of everything on the Internet is not useful.
Literally any first world news source outside of the US is going to appear "left wing biased"
Most of the developed world is progressive compared to the USA. The USA right-wing is an isolated curiosity to most of the world. The only comparable nation I can think of would be Australia, because it still has open areas comparable to our mid-west, and thus an independent streak, as in, "We ain't need no pesky national government nosin' around in our business. We do better on our own."
Because the idea that there are alternate facts and all viewpoints are equally valid needs to die.
If a claim starts gathering eyeballs, you have to address it head on. It's going to happen whether it "should" or not.
That's where a quick-acting debunking service would help. Debunking sites exist, but are usually late to the party. If a given fake article or fake meme pops up, then a debunking service can pop into action to check it out. Stick some ads on the side of the site to pay for it.
Like if you see a claim that "Obama eats puppies" floating around, you could check the site and see what the quick-fact-checkers have on it when it's fresh. In some cases it may be a work-in-progress, such as "we have not been able to confirm the rumor but are still sifting. Stay tuned." After a while, they post a thorough debunking of it.
The bottom line is that CEOs are supposed to generate value for shareholders
Reports say that Meyer ordered underlings to not buy the resources to prevent and then not report the security breaches at Yahoo! That cost shareholders more than $1B in valuation on the Verizon deal.
Yep, had she done better there, perhaps Yahoo would be worth $48B instead of $47B. Considering it was worth $19B when she started, shareholders might be inclined to give her that one.
Crappy interface for finding what you want packaged together nicely and compactly. I don't see any serious attempt to group by a given event. Maybe I missed a magic button somewhere?
You know - I have a case of Aspergers. I occasionally have issues picking up on jokes and what people are really getting at, but I've trained myself through the years and paying attention to mostly get by alright. Occasionally on Slashdot however I find that I get a reply from Drax the Destroyer and I don't feel so bad about the areas that I still have difficulties with.
Tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, 10 ft. snow, volcanoes, etc., I wonder what places have the least risk? It seems every place can be bleeped by Acts of God in roughly the same proportion.
Scientifically prove that claim. Dare ya. It was a side mention anyhow; the key points were not directly tied to "him". It's thus a complaint as small as his hands. Oops, did it again.
"Only the hypocrite is really rotten to the core." -- Hannah Arendt.