> You guys cloned a whole suite of products in a short period of time that cost millions of dollars.
At the risk of stating the obvious, the functionality isn't actually cloned, only the UI. The actual code powering Gmail probably dates back to the late 80s or early 90s and has had several hundred thousands of hours of work put into it. This is just a webpage that looks kind of similar.
I point this out only because I've seen people saying that software businesses don't have moats anymore because of this, which is taking away a completely false lesson.
Out of curiosity, would you explain what you mean by that? Google was founded in 1998 and writing a mail client isn't terribly complicated. Did they buy some code for Gmail from an older company? Is Gmail older than Google?
A full featured mailed client is insanely complicated. If you think mail client is just smtp, you probably think word is just text with some styling and excel is just some cells and functions.
I’m sure, buried somewhere deep in Google systems, are vestiges of mail server code originally written in the 80s. But when people use the name Gmail, they are generally referring to the client facing web app, which does not have any such code.
If it exists, it's probably not at all related to Gmail or only used for testing. I don't think Google reuses a lot of third party code in its first party server software.
He wasn't sitting there writing binary code and implementing all 7 layers of the OSI stack by hand, he was was gluing together pre-existing components. And the pre-existing components he had access to include two major email startups acquired by Google in 2001 and 2003, which were founded in 1995 and 1997 respectively. (Although he does have at least two patents for features and algorithms he co-invented while making Gmail.)
I mean it is so obvious causing me to find the use of the phrase cloned so weird that I feel it needs to be said.
The UI cloning doesn't feel exactly correct either there are things that are slightly off.
But I just find the "cloned" wrong, because obviously you cannot send an email from this account, you cannot log in to the service as Jeffrey Epstein, you cannot delete emails, create alerts based on searches, do actions on selected emails (create new tag, move under that tag)
there are so many functionalities that are not cloned because obviously they could not be cloned because they would make no sense for what this project is. So just the praise for cloning so quickly makes me sort of mad.
You could theoretically make something like this that allowed log in so you got a personalized epstein mails, and then could do all that, and perhaps get more mails sent in as files get released, and perhaps create Google alerts on epstein in the news etc. that would come as mails and maybe the code could put news that came in, into the appropriate the tags etc.
> The actual code powering Gmail probably dates back to the late 80s or early 90s and has had several hundred thousands of hours of work put into it.
no. google did not exist until the late 90s.
various forms of internet email sure did, but most popular mtas of the google era shared very little code with predecessors from the 80s and early 90s (maybe sendmail) and google almost certainly wrote their own from scratch.
but your first point. that an archive browser that looks like gmail is not equivalent to a full tilt email service backend is valid.
I'm not a physicist, but after getting into the rotten fruit this fall, I would bet my friend's horse could launch a space shuttle from her arse. Such a sweet mare, but she has no hesitation blasting Venetian atmosphere right into your face while you're scraping the shit out of her feet. At least she has the decency to make eye contact while doing it
All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system, public health, and GMail what have the Romans ever done for us?
All right, but apart from Google Wave, Google Reader, Google+, Inbox, Stadia, Project Ara, Google Glass, Loon, Picasa, Orkut, Hangouts, Allo, Duo, Google Domains, Google Health, Google Notebook, iGoogle, Knol, Jaiku, Daydream VR, Google Play Music, Nexus, Fusion Tables, Bump, Revolv, Songza, QuickOffice, Meebo, Panoramio, Milk, Schemer, Sparrow, Poly, Tilt Brush, Tour Builder, URL Shortener, Latitude, Spaces, Google Hire, Google Bulletin, Shoelace, and Neighbourly, Android Things, Project Tango, Ara Module Marketplace, Google TV, Nexus Q, Google Play Newsstand, Google Play Movies & TV, Google Podcasts, Google Now, Google Now Launcher, Google Goggles, Gesture Search, MyTracks, Google Play Edition, Android Auto for Phone Screens, All Access, Google Currents, Google SMS Search, Google Cloud Messaging, Android Beam, Androidify, Field Trip, Google Currents, and Google Play Artist Hub, what has Google ever done for us?
I mean the I would really only include the code for things like:
- Fetching email messages
- Parsing email headers
- Mime parsing
- Converting the text of email bodies into UTF-8
- Threading messages
- Eliding reply text
Given that the official story is that pb made the first version of Gmail in a day, does anyone actually believe that he wrote the code for any of those things in a day? If you honestly believe that I have a bridge to sell you.
Wait till you learn that the source code in Chrome also predates the existence of Google.
Maybe that and manipulating technical tools requires far less background knowledge than it did, meaning the definition of “technically inclined” has shifted, as it often does.
"less technically inclined" doesn't mean people can make whatever incorrect claims unchecked like on reddit, where you get banned because you post inconvenient facts in the wrong sub.
And this is exactly why I stopped participating in discussions on reddit and never on LinkedIn. Discussions on HN are so much civil and respectful here
P.S. if the top level comment was indeed posted by a "less technically inclined" person, I hope this is a humbling, positive educational experience, at least that's how I would take it
> Prompt engineering is like a shittier verson of writing a VBA app inside Excel or Access.
Sure, if you could use VBA to read a patient's current complaint, vitals, and medical history, look up all the relevant research on Google Scholar, and then output a recommended course of treatment.
Public Sub RecommendedTreatment()
' read patient complaint, vitals, and medical history
Set complaint = Range("B3").Value
Set vitals = Range("B4").Value
Set history = Range("B5").Value
' research appropriate treatments
ActiveSheet.QueryTables.Add("URL;https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=hygiene+drug", Range("Z1")).Refresh
' the patient requires mouse bites to live
Range("B5").Value = "mouse bites"
End Sub
"But wizzwizz4," I hear you cry, "this is not a good course of treatment! Ignoring all inputs and prescribing mouse bites is a strategy that will kill more patients than it cures!" And you're right to raise this issue! However, if we start demanding any level of rigour – for the outputs to meet some threshold for usefulness –, ChatGPT stops looking quite so a priori promising as a solution.
So, to the AI sceptics, I say: have you tried my VBA program? If you haven't tested it on actual patients, how do you know it doesn't work? Don't allow your prejudice to stand in the way of progress: prescribe more mouse bites!
You're absolutely right! I did--in fact--fail to consider the obvious negative consequences of killing the patient to remove his pain. I am truly horrified about this mistake. Let's try again, and this time I will make sure to avoid intentionally causing the patient's death.
Oops--you're absolutely right! I did--in fact--fail to remember not to kill the patient after you expressly told me not to.
This is the key issue. There is zero doubt whatsoever that flossing is essential, and the fact that the empirical evidence is equivocal shows the limitations of science to prove even the most obvious things.
I do floss, but I genuinely don't see that this is obvious. You can do a lot of damage with mechanical force, to both teeth and gums! Starting a flossing regimen after not having one tends to cause pain--isn't that a signal to stop? etc.
Furthermore, correlation is not causation and it could well be the case that flossing is associated with better outcomes without causing it. For example, people who can afford to go to the dentist regularly are therefore regularly told to floss. People who care about dental health in general probably floss more, but also may be doing other things, consciously or unconsciously, to improve outcomes. Gut (and perhaps mouth) bacteria have behavioral effects; perhaps flossing is caused by having healthy mouth bacteria!
(at least one study says mouthwash is better than floss. That seems obvious to me! liquids are smaller than floss.)
Actually, recent research suggests daily mouthwash use, especially alcohol-based and antimicrobial formulas, carries underappreciated risks (e.g., Microbiome disruption kills beneficial oral bacteria that help regulate blood pressure while promoting harmful strains linked to gum disease and certain cancers [oral, esophageal, colorectal]; Long-term alcohol-based mouthwash use is associated a with 40-60% increased risk of oral/pharyngeal cancers, with risk scaling by frequency and duration; Chlorhexidine reduces nitrate-reducing bacteria, potentially raising blood pressure and increasing prediabetes/diabetes risk even in healthy users; Some formulas actually increase acidic bacteria that lower salivary pH, promoting tooth demineralization and staining).
In other words, mouthwash offers short-term hygiene benefits but should probably not be used daily unless medically indicated. The oral microbiome matters more than we thought, and indiscriminately nuking it has downstream effects.
Do you have consistent gaps between all your teeth, and/or other conditions like strong enamel, or a good diet? If so, congratulations - flossing might not do much for you. But it's ridiculous to suggest that - if you don't floss and get food stuck between your teeth for days on end - that doesn't have a negative effect. Arguments about correlation/causation be damned.
> Starting a flossing regimen after not having one tends to cause pain--isn't that a signal to stop?
Moderate exercise after not exercising for a while causes pain - is that a signal to stop?
> What’s stopping a similar crisis that 23andMe customers faced where their genetic data along with their identifying information getting sold to the highest bidder if you ever become insolvent?
Nucleus employee here. Nucleus is a medical provider that is providing a medical service and is regulated by medical laws, which extend even through bankruptcy or acquisition. Whereas 23andMe was essentially an entertainment company and was regulated as such, which is what enabled that unfortunate situation to occur.
> But then at the end it added a "Fun fact" that unicode actually does have a seahorse emoji, and proceeded to melt down in the usual way.
To be fair, most developers I’ve worked with will have a meltdown if I try to start a conversation about Unicode.
E.g. if during a job interview the interviewer asks you to check if a string is a palindrome, try explaining why that isn’t technically possible in Python (at least during an interview) without using a third-party library.
> try explaining why that isn’t technically possible in Python (at least during an interview) without using a third-party library.
I'm actually vaguely surprised that Python doesn't have extended-grapheme-cluster segmentation as part of its included batteries.
Every other language I tend to work with these days either bakes support for UAX29 support directly into its stdlib (Ruby, Elixir, Java, JS, ObjC/Swift) or provides it in its "extended first-party" stdlib (e.g. Golang with golang.org/x/text).
> try explaining why that isn’t technically possible in Python (at least during an interview) without using a third-party library.
You're more likely to impress the interviewer by asking questions like "should I assume the input is only ASCII characters or the complete possible UTF-8 character set?"
A job interview is there to prove you can do the job, not prove your knowledge and intellect. It's valuable to know the intricacies of Python and strings for sure, but it's mostly irrellevant for a job interview or the job itself (unless the job involves heavy UTF-8 shenanigans, but those are very rare)
At a guess, there's nothing in Python stdlib which understands graphemes vs code points - you can palindrome the code points but that's not necessarily a palindrome of what you "see" in the string.
(Same goes for Go, it turns out, as I discovered this morning.)
Are you trying to start a conversation about unicode or intentionally pretending you dont understand what the interviewer asked for with "string is a palindrome" question?
Cause if you are intentionally obtuse, it is not meltdown to conclude you are intentionally obtuse.
These sorts of questions are what I call “Easter eggs”. If someone understands the actual complexity of the question being asked, they’ll be able to give a good answer. If not, they’ll be able to give the naive answer. Either way, it’s an Easter egg, and not useful on its own since the rest of the interview will be representative. The thing they are useful for is amplifying the justification. You can say “they demonstrated a deeper understanding of Unicode by pointing out that a naive approach could be incorrect”.
You can't parse [X]HTML with regex. Because HTML can't be parsed by regex. Regex is not a tool that can be used to correctly parse HTML. As I have answered in HTML-and-regex questions here so many times before, the use of regex will not allow you to consume HTML. Regular expressions are a tool that is insufficiently sophisticated to understand the constructs employed by HTML.
If by "parse" you mean "match", the answer is yes because you can express a context-free language in PCRE.
If you mean "parse" then it's probably annoying, as all parser generators are, because they're bad at error messages when something has invalid syntax.
We aren't, that turn of phrase is only being used to set up a joke about developers and about Unicode.
It's actually a pretty popular form these days:
a does something patently unreasonable, so you say "To be fair to a, b is also patently unreasonable thing under specific detail of the circumstances that is clearly not the only/primary reason a was unreasonable."
I think people are making explanations for it - because it's effectively a digital black box. So all we can do is try to explain what it's doing. Saying "be fair" is more colloquial expression in this sense. And the reason he's comparing it to developers and unicode is a funny aside about the state of things with unicode. And Besides that, LLMs only emit what they emit because it's trained on all those said people.
Yeah, their claim that it is the most common procedure is incorrect. There are more colonoscopies performed every year, too. I followed the citations and they are citing a 2007 paper that was meta-analysis regarding cost effectiveness of cataract surgery, so the claim gets more dubious the deeper you dig.
The article is still interesting, but they probably should have left that claim out.
> It’s still the best measure we have, though you should obviously know that LDL measured while on statins is lower than it would be normally.
I'm not a doctor, but doesn't LDL basically just prevent the body from healing damage to the epithelium, which comes from things like high blood pressure and inflammation? Unless my understanding is wildly off base, it doesn't really make sense that a thing that merely slows down the healing process would be more predictive than the things causing the damage in the first place, given that if you aren't accumulating significant damage then your levels of cholesterol are somewhat moot.
My favorite definition of heart disease is "when circulating fats in the blood (lipids) are pushed by a driving force (blood pressure) into a vessel wall that is vulnerable (endothelial dysfunction)." IMO this gives a good mental picture of how all of these risk factors fit together.
Seems like a reasonable policy. Given that the most talented tech workers, the ones the H1-B visas are designed to make it easier bring to the U.S., are getting $100M+ signing bonuses right now, a $100k/yr fee seems pretty trivial in comparison.
That’s true in AI field. Even if you are an elite researcher in some other field like biosciences, physics you can’t demand those salaries. So people in those other fields are essentially screwed.
Given that AI has made repeatedly pulling the lever on the world's biggest digital slot machine feel like building a valuable software business, is it really any wonder that a lot of the younger founders who are raising seed rounds are really just glorified tweakers? I was recently on the market for a new job, and within two months I talked with three different founders who, pre-AI, may well have been "employed" stripping bicycles for parts to sell for meth. But now, thanks to Claude and ChatGPT, these folks are now able to vibe up enough traction to raise a couple million bucks in a seed round.
The fact that most of these folks are going to fail doesn't especially bother me. After all, that was true for previous generations as well. What's different now is that a lot of these folks not only won't be coming away from these experiences having developed marketable skills, but many of them will have significant health problems that prevent them from doing so in the future.
I'm actually very bullish on the use of AI in software development overall. But when placed in the hands of folks who haven't yet had the time to develop hard skills, it both enables and incentivizes cutting corners to an alarming extent.
My problem is not that they're going to fail, or even that they aren't going to learn much from their failure. It's that they're going to take many people down with them.
Just to take today's example: there's a npmjs supply chain attack. Dependabot & co are going to issue alerts. Most vibe coders aren't going to know what it's about, or even care. Which means that some of the users of vibe coded apps are going to lose their life savings over this ignorance.
At the risk of stating the obvious, the functionality isn't actually cloned, only the UI. The actual code powering Gmail probably dates back to the late 80s or early 90s and has had several hundred thousands of hours of work put into it. This is just a webpage that looks kind of similar.
I point this out only because I've seen people saying that software businesses don't have moats anymore because of this, which is taking away a completely false lesson.