If a search engine (be it Ecosia, Qwant, DDG or Google) is used by someone who is running uBlock Origin, does it benefit the company running the engine or does the cost of queries with no chance of displaying an add to the user outweigh the benefit from the meager amount of data collected (IP address? Interest in given keywords? Some more data for tuning the search results?)?
Search engines should be run as utilities. Unfortunately we are now in the stage where utilities (and other must haves such as education) are run as private enterprises.
You say that, but I don't think you actually want that. Utilities are very good for important, slowly changing type things. They ossify into conservative, safe services. Which is good if we're talking about power generation and transmission or water treatment or whatever. Search is still changing way too rapidly.
We do, on the other hand, need better regulation regarding how individual data can be used, collected, and shared, particularly in the US.
Food production doesn't have the same dynamics as search does. There is little value in thousands of small search farmers each indexing their own acre of the Internet space. That's why it should be run as a utility, it's not about importance.
How soon are effects visible? Complete lack of food - days, chronic malnutrition - months or years. Lack of education - decades. Many people are not smart enough to think that far ahead.
Lack of education is also generally desirable to many people in power. Not just politicians who can more easily lie but also managers and execs. If the tax system is beyond most people's understanding, rich people are not gonna get taxed properly. If people can't do the math on how much value their work produces for a company, they are not gonna understand how big a chunk the people above them in hierarchical structures (like most companies) take out of it.
Unlike food, education (or lack of it) doesn't have universal definition. Because of that it's easy to stretch and manipulate. And it's been stretched and manipulated all the time cause possibility to indoctrinate young people creates immense political power. Like with free speech, non-uniform, not strictly state controlled (which implies private) education is a way to prevent state bureaucracy to concentrate too much power. That's not touching the fact that state hierarchies are well known for their inefficiency. Let's be fair, the reason people usually passionately bring education with politics in neighboring sentences is because it's widely accepted that our beliefs are right, and therefore people who stand against them are dumb, and maybe education can lead them (or at least their children) to our embrace! Funny thing, those "our beliefs" are often incompatible, and even opposite. Which makes me think that humanity doesn't work like that really
Current search trends, and which results get clicked for which queries, are still intrinsically valuable. Mostly for the search index signals as you mention, and other things like updating recrawl rates, etc.
Even for established players these have value because the index gets stale quickly for certain queries that many people care about a lot. Even though that value isn't fungible, or enough to break even if it were, it's the kind of value that keeps the search engine competitive.
Vivaldi has a (as private as possible, check their blog) whitelist for click attribution. My guess they refer to ads on search engines on their partner search engine.
> For example, the German "Ich sehe die Frau mit dem Fernglas" (I see the woman with the binoculars) is _unambiguous_ because "die Frau" and "mit dem Fernglas" match in both gender and case. If this weren't the case, it could be either "I see (the woman with the binoculars)" or "I see (the woman) with [using] the binoculars".
My German is pretty rusty, why exactly is it unambiguous?
I don't see how changing the noun would make a difference. "Ich sehe" followed by any of these: "den Mann mit dem Fernglas", "die Frau mit dem Fernglas", "das Mädchen mit dem Fernglas" sounds equally ambiguous to me.
Does visiting pages A and B on day 1 and visiting page A on day 2 also make the sentence true? I think that's the source of ambiguity (or maybe it's ambiguous to me only because English is not my native language).
The user has visited A and B on day 1, and A on day 2.
So the total page hits is (A, B, A). Remove duplicates and you have (A, B) which makes the sentence true.
The noun is not the issue but rather the scope of uniqueness:
>Now, given two log files (log file from day 1 and log file from day 2) we want to generate a list of ‘loyal customers’ that meet the criteria of: (a) they came on both days, and (b) they visited at least two unique pages.
It appears to me that the requirement could be interpreted as either:
"(visit on day 1) AND (visit on day 2) AND (total unique pages count > 2)"
a clearer way to put it would be "visited at least two unique pages in total"
or
"(visit at least two unique pages on day 1) AND (visit at least two unique pages on day 2)"
a clearer way to put it would be "visited at least two unique pages on each day"
I specifically mentioned mounting (https://rclone.org/commands/rclone_mount/ which may use some additional storage space depending on the caching configuration) whereas you seem to be talking about mirroring the data in the cloud and on other devices.
From what I understand it's their friendly interface that differentiates them from RClone mount. I've only read their documentation but otherwise I can't see any benefit and only the risk of getting involved with a less tested tool.
Yup, it's also very useful for doing stuff like checking archive integrity after upload (got bitten by it once when uploading some archives via FTP) and syncing with cloud - I've had a dedicated client remove files from my PC instead of the cloud after desync, rclone makes it easy to check what will be done and works with pretty much every service available.
Isn't it a matter of words changing meaning over time? Could it be that what James Madison called "democracy" corresponds to "direct democracy" in modern understanding and "republic" corresponds to "representative (indirect) democracy" in modern parlance?
If not, then what are the differences between republic described by Madison and representative democracy?
There is a difference between words changing over time (example: awful historically meaning full of awe and the modern usage meaning very bad) and changing a form of Government of the US that is codified in the US Constitution.
>If not, then what are the differences between republic described by Madison and representative democracy?
To try to answer your question, if we used “Representative Democracy” then the US and UK would both have the same form of government, a Representative Democracy, which in my opinion highlights why proper use of the terms is necessary.
The US is a Constitution Republic and the UK is a Constitution Monarch, at least according to the legal documents that establish their respective Governments.
Whether a Constitutional Republic or Constitutional Monarch, neither is a Democracy. Sure both having elections and voting of at least some kind, but the UK is not a Republic despite having a House of Commons with elected Members of Parliament.
Let’s turn this question around…in your opinion what is the difference between a Republic and a Democracy? If any Republic that holds elections of representatives do you simply classify both the UK and US Representative Democracies?
>in your opinion what is the difference between a Republic and a Democracy?
To keep things simple:
democracy -> majority rule
republic -> majority rule + no inheritance of public offices (so no monarch)
Of course it can get more complicated than that - democracies can differ in terms of who can and cannot vote, freedom of press, how exactly the separation of powers is handled (or if the powers are separated at all), what method is used to distribute seats in the parliament, how much power is held by the president and how much is held by the prime minister etc.
By that definition US and UK are both (representative) democracies but of these two only the US is a republic and UK is a parliamentary ("constitutional" sounds pretty weird in this context given that there is no codified constitution) monarchy (while still being a democracy).
>To keep things simple: democracy -> majority rule
>By that definition US and UK are both (representative) democracies
I do not agree that majority rule is by itself the definition of democracy, but assuming arguendo for sake of keeping things simple, what in the US is majority rule? The US Constitution certainly doesn’t expressly establish majority rule, although it clearly establishes the US form of government is a Republic. The Constitution establishes 3 branches of Government. Executive, the President, is not elected by majority rule. Legislators, Representatives & Senators are not elected by majority rule. Judiciary, the Supreme Court Justices are not elected at all. Laws themselves are not majority rule rather a system of checks and balances of the 3 branches of Government guaranteed the Constitution.
>("constitutional" sounds pretty weird in this context given that there is no codified constitution) monarchy (while still being a democracy).
The UK does have a Constitution, it’s just not a single document like the US Constitution. It’s not exactly weird that the US Constitution isn’t the sole form of Constitution. In either case you being weird is immaterial to the UK being a Constitutional Monarchy.
Would adding the account to a mail client so that it logs into the account via IMAP on PC/phone startup help or does Yahoo require a login via the web interface?
Java is a much larger and more complex language than C. Consequently, it is much more fragile. I was one of the ones who thought Java was the best thing since sliced bread back in the 90s ("Write Once, Use Everywhere"), but I found it it very difficult to work with at times because you had to jump through hoops to get around those complexities.
And that's not including the bastardisation of Java that occurred when Microsoft tried to bring it down by changing many of the classes to something incompatible. I once got into an online discussion of something or other and couldn't work out why the other guy's code and results differed from mine. I then discovered that while I was using Sun's (official) Java, he was using Microsoft's (different) Java.
Don't get me wrong. Java is a good (overall) language but it's just not the simple and fast language that C is. There is the old joke that C makes it easier to shoot yourself in the foot. That is true, but it is also a very versatile and clean language.
