Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

One of the most useful internal tools at Google: Code Search "Sometimes I would not even look through my own IDE, I would just type 'cs /xyz...' " From Irina Stanescu who worked at Google for 5 years. Fascinating how Google's *internal* code search is also as good as...

51,171 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr •via X (Twitter)

7 Kommentare

Profilbild von Gergely Orosz
Gergely Oroszvor 1 Jahr

Full episode: YouTube: Spotify: Apple: Web:

Profilbild von tian/天
tian/天vor 1 Jahr

@thecaringtechie @beyang @Sourcegraph

Profilbild von Yash
Yashvor 1 Jahr

@thecaringtechie i absolutely love @Sourcegraph - it saves so much time while debugging an issue or identifying

Profilbild von Aidan 📘🐛
Aidan 📘🐛vor 1 Jahr

@thecaringtechie I literally keep a custom search engine in my browser for Chromium code search Cmd+T => cr <tab> => search string

Profilbild von Chris Ebert
Chris Ebertvor 1 Jahr

@thecaringtechie My employer pays for GitHub Enterprise. I find being able to search over all organizational repositories is so helpful. I can quickly see how other teams are solving problems or if other folks are doing similar work.

Profilbild von Neil Pierre-Louis
Neil Pierre-Louisvor 1 Jahr

@thecaringtechie The monorepo is 🔥🔥

Profilbild von Tommy Parnell
Tommy Parnellvor 1 Jahr

@thecaringtechie Opengrok is one of my favorite code searching tools, it's not pretty but it works very well.

Ähnliche Videos

Google has a Gemini Problem, and Chamath has a plan to fix it 📈 On E225, the besties discussed how Google can cut ChatGPT's lead over Gemini without killing its $200B/year search ads business. David Sacks: "I think the problem that Google has with respect to ChatGPT, is Gemini is not getting the usage, and ChatGPT is just growing like crazy." "If you look at how these models perform according to the benchmarks, Gemini is actually really good, but they have not caught up on the usage side." david friedberg: "Chamath, you're the CEO of Google, you've got a $200B run rate search ad business." "What's the right integration of Gemini such that you don't massively disrupt the search ad business overnight?" "Or do you not care and you're just gonna do it? I think that's the conundrum (Google) is dealing with." Chamath Palihapitiya: " The more difficult question is, what does the integration look like?" "They're already inserting Gemini in all kinds of uncomfortable ways." "So for example, if you use Gmail, or if you use Google Workspace, what happens today is all these random Gemini pop-ups come up all over the place." "That is an implementation that happened at way too junior a level by people that have no product taste." "And if you use the products every day, it would be hard for you to disagree with me." David Sacks: " The Google homepage, would you replace that with an AI chatbot?" Chamath Palihapitiya: " No. Here's what I would do: I would first go to the critical other points that are around, that today do not cannibalize the blue links." "If you look at the traffic patterns, almost as a Sankey diagram, the real thing you should be looking at here is where are the entry points into Google that then result in a clickable link." "And what it would show you is that there are certain places that are highly de-optimized today for revenue generating events." "They happen as a byproduct, but they don't happen as the use case." "So in that example, you would put Gmail as a critical place, the Google one subscription, and there's like five or six other places." "That's where I would put Gemini as the front door and start to habituate 300 to 500 million people a week in using that." "I think then you can figure out over time how much money you can make from all of that, or how it directs derivative revenue, and figure out what to do with Google dot com last." "But my point is, the experience in Gmail should be done today." "The experience in YouTube should be done today." "The experience in Google one should be done today."

The All-In Podcast

100,683 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

WARP SPEED: EPISODE 5 - starring Varunram Ganesh, Founder of Lapis Varunram Ganesh The next generation of 20 year olds are going to default to LLMs for search. Varun is building Lapis into the most accurate AI search analytics platform. They are part of Y Combinator F25 - 1 day away from demo day with a countdown clock on his desk. The insight: people are already defaulting to ChatGPT over Google. As time goes on, more leveraged decisions get made through LLMs, not search engines. "So many people are searching on Google, they're going to be searching on ChatGPT. Why aren't people knowing where they are on ChatGPT?" Lapis tells you exactly what a human will search for your website to show up in AI. And unlike Google, it's not about ranking positions - LLMs reason differently. On Warp: "I don't even think about payroll. Which is just to say Warp is such a good product that I just don't think about it. No spam emails. No upsells. It's just so smooth." In this conversation: (0:00) - Shift from Google-style search to LLMs: “More leveraged decisions are now made through the LLM.” (0:15) - What Lapis does: the most accurate AI search analytics platform. (1:15) - YC intensity: six weeks from Demo Day, rapid feedback loops, constant customer conversations. (2:00) - “The hardest part of running a startup is the most boring stuff.” (2:41) - How AI search differs from Google search. (3:23) - Building a company through trust. (3:51) - “Every founder said, ‘Check out Gabriella Warp - a genuinely friendly solution. (4:02) - Big providers needed six weeks just to get set up. (4:20) - Texted Ayush and got set up in 15 minutes. (4:25) - Warp is so smooth you don’t think about payroll — no spam emails, no upsells, just seamless.

Ayush S

56,114 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

Google is making $62 billion a quarter destroying the websites it NEEDS to survive. This is literally a death spiral that ends with Google killing itself. Let me explain what's going on... Google added AI summaries to the top of every search result in 2024. When you Google something now, the answer sits right there on Google's page. You never have to click anywhere. Google took the information from someone else's website, summarized it, and kept you inside Google's ecosystem. The result: 60% of all Google searches now end without a single click to any website. Small publishers lost 60% of their traffic in one year. Medium publishers lost 47%. Even the biggest names in media, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Business Insider, all saw traffic fall between 22% and 55%. The Axios CEO called it "a referral extinction event for the ad-supported web." Google's response to all of this was to tell publishers they can "opt out" of having their content summarized. But opting out also REMOVES your description from normal search results. So the choice Google gives you is let us steal your content for free, or become invisible on the internet. That's extortion. The Washington Post laid off another round of journalists this year because of it. Stereogum, one of the most respected music publications on the internet, had to BEG readers for donations. Business Insider cut 21% of its staff. Dozens of smaller publishers have shut down entirely. The people who actually CREATE the information Google summarizes are going bankrupt while Google posts record revenue. But here's where this gets interesting and where everyone stops thinking: Google's AI summaries are only as good as the content they summarize. If the publishers who write the original articles, run the original investigations, and create the original data go out of business, there is nothing left for Google to summarize. The AI starts recycling old information, the answers get stale, the quality drops, and users start noticing that Google's summaries are increasingly wrong, outdated, or useless. Google is essentially strip-mining the internet for short-term revenue. They are extracting all the value from content creators without paying for it, driving those creators out of business, and then wondering why the quality of their own product is declining. This is exactly what Napster did to the music industry in the early 2000s: Made content free, creators went broke, and quality collapsed. It took a decade to rebuild. Google is doing the same thing to the entire internet at 100x the scale. Rolling Stone, Variety, Deadline, The Hollywood Reporter, and Billboard are now suing Google for antitrust violations. Chegg, the education platform, lost 49% of its traffic and is suing too. The UK's competition authority just ordered Google to let publishers opt out without being punished. The DOJ already ruled Google is an illegal monopoly. And Google's defense in court is genuinely unbelievable. They argue that publishers CHOOSE to let Google index their content and can leave anytime they want. That's like saying you choose to pay protection money to the mob because technically you could close your business and move to another city. Google controls 90% of search. Leaving Google means leaving the internet. Meanwhile Google is investing billions in custom AI chips to make these summaries cheaper at scale. Every quarter the problem gets worse. The internet as we've known it for 25 years ran on a simple deal: Publishers make content. Google sends traffic. Advertisers pay for the traffic. Everyone wins. But Google just BROKE that deal and kept all the money.

Ricardo

249,221 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

I'm going through the Google News Initiative (Google News Initiative) and today's session was about ad revenue. Took a few minutes to offer some thoughts on how Google's HCU was hurting small publishers, and express concerns over their decision to block links to California publishers. We were told at the beginning of the session that it was being recorded on Google's end, to include comments made in the chatroom. Some of the issues I address: 1.) Google's HCU (Helpful Content Updates) are prioritizing SPAM-written content over original, authoritative pieces, contrary to Google's assertion that it rewards helpful, original content with rank. 2.) Google's Google SearchLiaison has heard complaints from me and other publishers for months, and has offered an unsatisfactory "we'll pass it along." 3.) Google appears aware of the issues, but hasn't addressed or fixed them. 4.) Google is further penalizing California publishers by deliberately not linking to news content out of protest of pending state legislation that specifically addresses Google's outsized control over the Internet and attempts (albeit through flawed reasoning) to level the playing field. 5.) While there was a part in today's session about "recapturing" revenue, no one addressed how publishers can navigate the ever-changing Google Search algorithms and other times when Google decides on a whim to move the goal posts to the detriment of good, original content publishers. I had a direct pipeline to Google today, and felt I had to speak up on behalf of other small and niche publishers who have been just as impacted and who feel they have no voice. Lily Ray 😏 Barry Schwartz John 🧀 ... 🧀 CA News Publishers Association News/Media Alliance Media Guild of the West 🧭 PacificMediaWorkers

Matthew Keys

30,340 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

J-Cal Explains Why Google is UNDERRATED in AI 👀 On E227, the besties discussed Google's value in a post-search world if AI replaces traditional search. @jason broke down why he thinks Google is being slept on: "I think there's a chance that we're underestimating the power of Google's ad network right now." "They have four or five products that are one or two billion users per month. You have YouTube, Google Docs, Android." "They have such a data advantage and such a deep integration into people's lives because they use three or four services, I think Google's gonna figure this out." "It's quite possible that knowing your queries in Gemini, knowing what you're doing in Calendar, knowing what you're watching on YouTube could lead to a stream of more targeted ads that do better and are more valuable." "We've been seeing a number of startups that are figuring out how to use your queries and what you're doing in AI to present to you search results." "So imagine you're doing a Gemini search and on the side of it, it's giving you a rolling list of ads or offers that you might be more interested in." "That could be a better advertising product than even search itself." "I think YouTube search is the place to go all-in." "Right now, when you do a YouTube search, it just gives you 10 links, right? It just gives you that rolling thing." "You should be able to ask a question to YouTube, and you should be able to ask questions to your calendar." "You should be able to say, who have I met with over the last 10 years? Who I'm no longer in touch with and what are they up to?" "And it should do a Gemini search inside of Google Calendar. It's very light right now." "And then if you did that on YouTube, this would train people at the point of pain in a very deep way without sacrificing Google Search queries too aggressively."

The All-In Podcast

58,275 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

2001. Larry Page and Sergey Brin sit for their first-ever television interview. Google has 200 employees. They explain that the company almost didn't get off the ground because they couldn't cash a check. The check was for $100,000. It came from Andy Bechtolsheim, one of the co-founders of Sun Microsystems. Page and Brin showed him what they'd built. He said, "This is great, how about I write you a check?" and just wrote it out. Made it out to Google. The problem was that Google didn't exist as a company yet. There was no bank account. No lawyers. No incorporation paperwork. The check sat in Larry Page's desk drawer for a month. They literally could not deposit it. They're both in their late twenties in this interview. They met at Stanford as PhD students and, by their own account, disliked each other from the start. Brin says Page is "kind of obnoxious." Page doesn't disagree. Brin says they argued about everything, debated every single point, and then realized that was their commonality. They became friends, started building a search engine they never planned to build, and put their PhDs on hold to get it out into the world. The part that stings watching this in 2026 is the rejection tour. Before starting Google, they approached existing search companies to sell or license the technology. They went to Yahoo. David Filo, one of Yahoo's founders, told them, "This is great search technology. Why don't you guys make a company, and maybe we'll use you someday?" They went to Excite. They went to InfoSeek. Same response. Page says a CEO at one of those companies told them: "If our search is 85% as good as the next guy's, that's good enough for us." Page and Brin didn't buy that. They thought the search was too important to be 85% as good. So they started Google. No marketing. No ad campaign. They launched it at Stanford, and it grew 20% per month, every single month, for three years straight. Pure word of mouth. By the time of this interview, they're handling over 100 million searches a day. They get 500 resumes in the mail every single day. The office space around them is 30% vacant because the dot-com bubble just popped, but Google is profitable. Page makes a point of this: "We've been really interested in being profitable, like long before it was fashionable." They'd also just hired Eric Schmidt, former CTO of Sun, as CEO. Brin's explanation for why: "Parental supervision, to be honest." Page adds that they're "past the age where we're rebellious" and that running a search engine used by 100 million people a day with 200 employees is "a large responsibility." The number that caught my eye: when Google started in 1998, it indexed 30 million web pages. At the time of this interview, three years later, they indexed 1.3 billion. The page says that if you printed them all out and stacked the paper, it would be about 70 miles high. And it was doubling every year. Every search company they approached turned them down. Yahoo eventually came back and hired Google to power its own search results. The CEO who thought 85% was good enough ran a company that no longer exists. Alphabet, Google's parent company, is worth about $3.6 trillion today. It has about 190,000 employees. That $100,000 check sat in a desk drawer because nobody had incorporated the company. Bechtolsheim's stake from that investment is now worth billions.

Anish Moonka

12,042 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten