neuralk
Joined 13 years ago
Joined 13 years ago
Yes, because then I could apply my own ranking. More realistically, it would be useful as various web services could select from among various forms of ranking as desired by their users. Right now, the internet as a collective is at the whim of the particular ranking Google elects to use. If they don't like you, too bad, you lose.
What's more, I would even settle for a sorted list of all websites that contain my keywords, but Google provides no such thing. Google's algorithm has changed significantly in just the past few years, making it very difficult to do research of unusual topics, no matter how broad or specific you make your search. For instance, just today I was looking up information related to an event in the life of Andre Gide. After you get through a few pages (maybe 150 or so useful links from the grab bag of what appears), Google makes it such that you can explore no further. Entering a new term with a slight variation can yield a set of another ~150 results with no overlap with the previous search's results, making any kind of exhaustive research quite frustrating.
You're ultimately right, though, and that a true HD is only going to come from the raw film content. What the neural network gives us are essentially plausible higher-res hallucinations.
Edit: as per the other comment, if the original exists only on video and not film, perhaps this is the best we're going to get.
The high price you'd pay for paywalled papers goes in large part to the publisher for no real tangible benefit. Most research, and likely the linked article, are funded either directly or indirectly through public funds like taxes. So it is especially obnoxious to see an interesting article like the one linked be locked down.
As for why it's bad etiquette on the front page of HN, the free-and-open ethos common among hackers (at least, old school ones...) would usually see someone link directly to a pdf, instead of this.