Maps's search as a whole is terrible even from a UX perspective: search something with some filters, realise that you want to change a letter in the search? Byebye filters.
Some filters are available with a specific subset of words but not with another.
Zoom in a location, look for a common word? There are good chances it will zoom out and send you to the other side of the globe instead. Then pan back, hit "Search in this area" and bam it works.
Some devices can make reviews and some can't (tested on different devices, even Google ones).
Search for a specific word which might be in a review (say, "decaf") and you get even stuff which doesn't even remotely contain the word (I'd expect an empty result if no place has mentioned my keyword).
And many more.
It's just insane how a huge company just seem focused in making a "good enough" experience instead of being the leader. Maybe it's for the best but if they went 1 sprint/quarter into "let's fix glaring BS UX issues in our products", they would probably destroy so many alternatives out there.
Maybe it's on purpose to avoid some anti-trust kind of response? We'll never know.
Years ago I worked on the Google Maps team. IMO Google has underinvested in Maps UI for a long time due to a lack of competition and a lack of appreciation for the value of the product because the amount of direct revenue attributable to it is low. It's practically in maintenance mode.
The keyword is sustainability. I have seen the same, in the US is winner takes all (or most) while in the EU, you can be present locally on a smaller scale (say within a single country or region), be growing (albeit slowly) and still be able to exist.
Sure, it might not make you a billionaire but you end up still being your own boss, not stress out if investors suddenly change mind on what's cool, etc.
There are two authentication properties that one might be interested in:
1. The binding of some real world identity (e.g., "Google") to the domain name ("google.com).
2. The binding of the domain name to a concrete Web site/connection.
The WebPKI is responsible for the second of these but not the first, and ensures that once you have the correct domain name, you are talking to the right site. This still leaves you with the problem of determining the right domain name, but there are other mechanisms for that. For example, you might search for the company name (though of course the search engines aren't perfect), or you might be given a link to click on (in which case you don't need to know the binding).
Yes, it is useful to know the real world identity of some site, but the problem is that real world identity is not a very well-defined technical concept, as names are often not unique, but instead are scoped geographically, by industry sector, etc. This was one of the reasons why EV certificates didn't really work well.
Obviously, this isn't a perfect situation, but the real world is complicated and it significantly reduces the attack surface.
Nothing mentioned will help for a website with a Let's Encrypt SSL cert. How can I know with confidence that I can conduct commerce with this website that purports to be the company and it's not a typo squatter from North Korea? A google search doesn't cut it. Nothing in this thread has answered that basic question.
It's a non-issue for DigiCert and Sectigo certs. I can click on the certs and see for myself that they're genuine.
No you can't. Even during the EV years, clowning an EV cert was more like a casual stunt for researchers than an actual disclosable event. In reality, there's nothing DigiCert is meaningfully doing to assure you about "conducting commerce" on sites.
Alright, the whole article stands on the lifting done by the concept of "vibe coding", which is not just asking an LLM to write some code, scan it quickly to check if it at least makes somewhat sense and then accept it. It is based on pure vibe coding, where the user literally has no idea what's being produced.
After having understood the context, I still believe that a strongly typed language would be a much better choice of a language, for exactly the same reason why I wouldn't recommend starting a project in C unless there is a strong preference (and even then Rust would probably be better still).
LLMs are not perfect, just like humans, so I would never vibe code in any other environment than one in which many/most logical errors are by definition impossible to compile.
Not sure if C is worse than python/js in that respect (I'd argue it is better for some and worse for other, regarding safety) but Java, Swift, C#, Go, Rust, etc. are great languages for vibe coding since you have the compiler giving you almost instant feedback on how well your vibe coding is going.
Claude Code is pretty good at Rust, but it works best if there's a pre-existing structure built by a human that it's operating within. Rust's error messages give rich context and are designed for humans, so it's able to figure out how to resolve its mistakes from them in ways that it simply would have to grind through in tests with trial and error in dynamic languages. And then when you do write unit tests to address logic bugs, it's able to leverage the rich context from the type system to write decent tests.
I wouldn't trust it to reliably write safe C though. It works in Rust because there's meaning embedded into the types that are checked by the compiler that gives it feedback when it makes mistakes. But you don't get that in C.
> This is especially damning when the long unskippable cutscene is during a boss fight or something which you might fail afterwards and cannot save.
Some games have started to get this right, either by making cutscenes you've seen skippable, or by just automatically skipping straight to the battle if you've already been through it once. I suspect one reason it didn't happen on older games was the need to explicitly save, rather than autosaving.
Unlike a movie, when done well, the combat/grinding add to player engagement because it places the player in direct charge of the characters' growth from a nobody to a legend. You can't get that from a movie.
I see room for a platform that only does auth, reviews and perhaps indexing.
Since you didnt ask, let me needlessly elaborate.
You can have YouTube or X or Facebook "design" a web page for you but those are always extremely lame. Just have websites in stead?? Their moderation looks more like a zombie shooter. Wikipedia has some kind of internet trial but that is so unsophisticated that it might even be worse.
It could be a simple redaction with a number of seats that can be emptied when the users request it though a random selection of jurors.
The redaction makes suggestions and eventually removes your website.
The site can still be publicly available before and after, it just doesnt live in the index.
Sure, if you're going to reuse something which would be thrown away or left to dust otherwise (foolish but I'd imagine someone does that).
But don't do this just so you can upgrade your current pc.
I'd vouch more for old laptops, which are generally not upgradeable, come with built-in UPS, if you remove the screen is as thin as a notebook and can handle low usage. Then you can connect either directly or via other interfaces a bunch of disks and you're golden.
Some filters are available with a specific subset of words but not with another.
Zoom in a location, look for a common word? There are good chances it will zoom out and send you to the other side of the globe instead. Then pan back, hit "Search in this area" and bam it works.
Some devices can make reviews and some can't (tested on different devices, even Google ones).
Search for a specific word which might be in a review (say, "decaf") and you get even stuff which doesn't even remotely contain the word (I'd expect an empty result if no place has mentioned my keyword).
And many more.
It's just insane how a huge company just seem focused in making a "good enough" experience instead of being the leader. Maybe it's for the best but if they went 1 sprint/quarter into "let's fix glaring BS UX issues in our products", they would probably destroy so many alternatives out there.
Maybe it's on purpose to avoid some anti-trust kind of response? We'll never know.
reply