ganti_r

I tend to agree with this. I inherited a product which had one/two engineers supporting each client implementation. It used to take 2+months to add a new data source.

When we dug in and improved the architecture, we could support 3+ clients with one engineer and add any new data source to less than a week.

I don't attribute it only to code quality but a combination of better architecture, good development practices(proper linting, proper conventions etc) and good product road map.

Focusing only on code quality without context may not be useful. Saying that it doesn't take more than a few minutes to set the core tenets of the project even for a small one time project.

What has freedom got to do with a change in laws on how it deals with citizenship of illegal migrants.

There is lot of fud spread without understanding

Great site. I really love this. Have been looking for something like this for long

As the article highlights, it's not the lack of data. It's a decision conscious/unconscious on the part of Google to smoothen out what it shows

The fundamental difference in ML of you work with data, where as in s/w you work with rules. It's a subtle difference but I believe is very profound. It's very hard to develop intuition around data and most s/w devs treat data as rules. It's not entirely the fault is DS folks who happen to come from non s/w background and vice-versa. In my mind the management should understand that their is a gap and seek to help close the same.

What will publishers do with troves of traffic. If the quality of the same is bad.

The discoverablity is subjective. I as user a see the same sites and same topics thanks to "the algorithm".

I don't mean to say publishers don't need Google. It is that now (compared to past) Google's position is much stronger and they dictate terms, publishers are screwed either ways, so better put a fight than now down