neotokio

I think there are few things to consider here,

1) Google CANNOT provide you with technical search, because choice of index/query filters is always limited (ie. Do I prefer exact matches over multiple matches?)

2) Google has shareholder & public responsibility. It means that service is adjusted (and it's 'algorithms') towards biggest type of queries performed.

All of this is a constant battle between precision and recall for given query. Adding to complexity, Google needs to account for

* Extraordinary amount of users using their search

* Extraordinary amount of data on webpages

* Importance of authority

In smaller search engines (ie. shop full-text search) you usually adjust towards one use case. This in itself is already hard.

Google does that for all possible use cases, for all possible queries while still fighting same precision/recall battle.

To be clear. I think google is terrible, but I also think that there is no other option for them at this point.

All of this became clear for me the moment I've got interested in build search and relevance engines.

In 2015 'it will be killed off by google' sounded feasible in my mind. Today I use Duckduckgo for 90% of time and Google only for some very specific (mostly local) searches, Google seems to only hold 'early starter and low moral privacy policy' advantage. They also seem to target typical 'new Internet user' now more than ever, I don't remember last time I found something useful or 'smart' with Google.

That being said, let Google have general traffic search because it fails on everything else. I agree with your approach to find a generic niche, first question is - who's end user? Will it be 'I want to buy this item' (e-commerce)? Will it be 'I want to find out industry specific information? (competitor). Will it be 'I want to know how to use X' (your last one).

Each has its own problems. And, most likely, each already has a solution - it's just probably a) too commercialized (e-commerce - comparison sites) b) biased (competitors - analytics engines used by whole industry) c) too broad

There is abundance of data and it interconnects heavily, there is more and more alternative data (social apps, images, maps etc) too. I think it would be nice to think outside of algorithmic approach (how do I find X in most optimal way) and start thinking about contextual approach (how do I find if X is right).

Uff, to the point - I think starting small, with something annoyingly hard or time consuming to find, would be best. For example, I always spend DAYS reading about basic house appliances before buying it and most of info I find is heavily commercialized therefore useless (affiliate programs). I don't say 'Do that!', but there is definitely a need for niche-specific-search-algo/aggregator.

Stands for a point of 'profit margins'.

Indian Green Revolution was a spiritual successor of Mexican 'Green' Revolution (avoiding famine in Mexico), same people (corporations) responsible for both. Yes, famine was avoided, but let's look at the costs - energy + soil degradation + lack of biodiversity (btw. India STILL has tremendous malnutrition problem, crops are mainly exported - again - profit margins).

There is a big asymmetry here we are discussing, mainly, pre 'Green Revolution' agriculture was unsustainable because of population growth and lack of education (development of sustainable agriculture for internal use), while after revolution is unsustainable because of... same things (exchange lack of education for no need to educate). India didn't solve anything, it just pushed the problem further ahead while country monetized on exports (which, without a doubt, provided higher standard of living for some %).

Why not do what i already described? Better management, better climate related preparations, stronger internal supply lines? How is that worse than GM-way which seems to only beat those solutions in profits? Seems more reasonable to save energy, make agriculture less reliable on outsourced tech and empower local production.

I think GMOs are solution to problem from 1960-1970s, not from 2020.

That's a brilliant solution, what a shame that is also part of a problem.

GM crop is by definition commercial crop, half of Indian agricultural problems are because of death of local farming vs conventional farming (think energy costs, supply chains effectiveness, technology dependence and lack of biodiversity which hits food chain hard).

Why are we exactly fixed on GM crop but not on better food management policies, promotion of local farming and climate-related tech (ie. irrigation)? Is it because GMO has clear profit margin where above mentioned (and many more) doesn't?

One can argue even about selective breeding which also has its own costs (fragility of a given genetics), but GMO should, by rule, be heavily limited.

Some time ago I always looked down upon such creators, but, with time - what is the difference between those influencer kids and Hollywood (especially in times of netflix cut-cost model)? Its still only about content provided, and content market is biggest ever today. Of course, I doubt that this (being employed as YT persona) is sustainable on a long run (there is myriad of reasons, including platform dependence), but girl already has a foothold in entertainment industry, far easier to start for her now than if sending screenplays to random producers. My point being, people watching it (or authors creating it) are not stupid, they are market driven, its almost a systemic problem that we can create value out of nothing and sustain this value doing nothing. World continues to spin.

When it comes to titanium it is not that bad. Human body is (most likley) able to deal with titanium (contrary to mercury). However, nanoparticles in itself are problematic because of how they interact with body cells. Good is, possible, better drug delivery (think about possibility of crossing blood-brain barrier), bad is, potential unaccounted effects where body does not recognize nanoparticle as something 'alien', which can create a problems beyond even todays studies.

Case being, why add complexity? There is probably some use for advance technology in certain areas of live, i would gladly take ANY kind of treatment if i would be diagnosed with terminal disease. But why widen your exposure (civilization-wise) for unknowns only at the benefit of pure market profits?

“In more than 50 years of use as a colourant, no verifiable link has ever been shown between general intake of titanium dioxide and ill health in humans,”

That statement in itself is so vague. It's like saying that coal burning has very limited effect on human health because we do it for 150yrs and people are still live. Titanium is not necessary body mineral, therefore counting on 'lucky strike' that it will be assimilated positively is miss-or-hit attitude.

Simplicity over complexity, always.