Melk

There's a cutoff built into browsers in the form of a KeepAliveTimeout. A longer load time could have a valid reason, that's not for search engines to decide.

Also your example of a year is obtuse. It's like saying you should drive BMW because you will get killed in a Tesla if you crash at a million mph.

What Google's page speed factor does is differentiate between 1.5 and 2.5 seconds loading time. That has nothing to do with the quality of a page.

What's up with all the angry comments here? The article is about the influence of social media. People here take it as an assault on Trump supporters. Relax.

That's not propaganda. I thought HN would know better.

I expected better from HN. Don't know why really.

No thanks.

I remember this being discussed a decade ago. The irony was that in most cases it was abandoned because migrating cost more than the annual IT budget. And since no politician ever plans a decade ahead, here we are.

Cannes isn't forcing anyone to do anything. Relax. There is still an audience for theatre releases so Cannes will be fine and so will Netflix.

Politicians are our representatives, not corporations. If you want to shame people for not doing the right thing you would need to become a priest.

I'm trying to come up with a situation where loading a 199kb css file would make a difference. Maybe websites that target an audience that is expected to have a slow connection (banks etc.) but this kind of rules them out by not supporting IE.

He didn't say what they did was simple. He said it's a simple explanation for what they did. Google created a great search engine at the right place and time. Since then Google's products have been a hit but mostly a miss by a company with endless money.

Hot topic in The Netherlands right now is the threat of a hostile takeover of Akzo Nobel, a chemical company with 50,000 employees, by a US company. The government is discussing putting the same protective regulations in place that Trump is threatening with. The US isn't "losing" jobs to Germany, they are trade partners. If Americans want to stop trading then both sides lose.

Pretty funny isn't it. Seeing the cult of the CEO in an article about the cult of the CEO. Cultural changes always need time.

>publishers don't exactly have a good track record of treating their user well

That's an overly broad and vague statement to excuse entitlement. I'm fine with downloading content that's publicly available, but not because "they had it coming."

That sounds more like you projecting.

I agree with icebraining that it's not necessarily dumb for a business to advertise on less known or even irrelevant websites. It's the same difference between an ad flashing on a video wall on Time Square, or a billboard along a busy highway, or a poster hanging in a mall. Each has a different reach and purpose and with that comes a different price.

Google gives you the choice where you want your ads to be displayed; whether it's within the Google search results, or on websites like yours, or there are programs like Google Doubleclick where you can chose which websites you want to display your ads.

I think most of the criticism here doesn't so much reflect the ignorance of advertisers like the parent comment says, but ignorance of the people commenting how advertising works.

It's funny they you're getting downvoted while above you are there are several anecdotes that apparently do prove the plight of the poor white man.

"I won't defend Monsanto's behavior, I'll just belittle their critics as anti-GMO crusaders." It's that attitude why I'm against GMO on ethical grounds no matter how much scientific evidence there is to support it. You guys need to clean up your act.

NYT corrected/changed the title. I don't get why they are getting the heat when wikileaks leaked the information.

What politicians believe is irrelevant. They are salesmen paid to hold one opinion or the other. Do other intelligent and educated conservatives deny climate change? Yes. Look up the smart idiot effect.

I know it's not popular to say but I blame the Internet. When people start getting their news from social media and the so often heard "I go straight to the comments because that's where the article is always corrected" then authority flies out of the window. It has caused a distrust in science and the media and the government.

The last generation had news pundits and we have social media stars. Journalism used to have a self-regulated code of ethics but that's gone now. I don't know what the solution is other than to regulate news on the Internet.

It sounds a lot like you are looking at your own life by living it and looking at your that of your parent's from an overview of their past. Ask them what they were doing and how they felt at your age at the start of their career and trying to raise a family and I'll bet they had the same anxieties that you do on a day to day basis. I don't like this habit online discussions have of blaming Baby Boomers for "everything" because they usually aren't here to give their side of the story.

You should start off by limiting yourself because it's easy to get in over your head once you start down the path of unpaid work. I volunteer 20% of my time (one day a week) to non-profits so they know what they're getting.

Most of the jobs I got at first were through volunteering in other ways. I was a driver at a summer camp for underprivileged kids when I found that they needed a registration system they couldn't afford. And an animal shelter where I used to walk dogs had a little gift shop that sold handmade items so I set up an online store and their revenue went up 800%. Little projects like that can make a huge impact with little effort.

Then I blogged about the projects and now I regularly get requests through that. There are a lot of NGOs searching online for people like you so all you need to do is make yourself visible.

>The western powers have been doing most of the invading lately.

That's what you're replying to. Several former Warsaw Pact countries joined NATO. The West didn't invade them.

If you think Trump did nothing bad then you missed the last 24 hour news cycle. Hillary is a little old lady who ran for president a long time ago so I'm not sure why you brought her up. And also an outsider here, but I've seen Republicans call Obama a lot worse things then Hitler. So apparently weak rhetoric works well on the right.

I came here hoping to find some viable alternatives but I don't think children's book writer or thinker are it.

That's a surprising statement coming from an otherwise libertarian leaning HN. The ad market is one of the largest and most successful of the 21st century. Isn't that the definition of a market economy?

Until recently OP monetized his blog with ads. Should he have given up before his blog was popular enough to switch to sponsors?

I don't see how conspiracy theories are relevant. When did Obama say he was going to 'take their guns'?

This is what Trump said:

"That includes canceling billions in climate change spending for the United Nations"

https://www.bna.com/trump-says-plan-n57982082131/

It was the marketplace that made fake news possible. Traditional news always had its checks in place and they did a fairly good job upholding those. Even Google News follows quality guidelines[0]. It's no coincidence that fake news websites targeted Facebook because they knew there is no such vetting there.

0: https://support.google.com/news/publisher/answer/40787

It could be controlled by an organization like the United Nations or even under control of the UN itself.

If Facebook were a separate intergovernmental organization then, similar to the UN, it could draft a general charter while each member state would control regional provisions. Facebook could remain a publicly traded entity, except shareholders would have limited power.

Another advantage is that it wouldn't need to be nationalized by any one country and whether the CEO/Secretary-General was an American or rotated like the UN wouldn't matter much because their power would also be limited.

SRS isn't on r/All 24/7. SRS doesn't fill up 90% of /rising. SRS is only "infamous" for being a deflector for criticism of far right subreddits. No one has heard from that subreddit for years.

There are much more active subreddits that side with SRS if you want to go there, like circlebroke. There are also much more extreme subreddits than the_donald, like TheNewRight. Nobody is talking about banning those subreddits. This isn't a partisan argument. The_Donald is (purposely) interrupting how reddit works. I'm not an American and I have no dog in this fight, but the_donald is ruining reddit for a lot of us.