I'm confused. It looks like you work at Google[0] but you're actively [1][2] trying to advertise this piece. Why?<p>0: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25829757" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25829757</a><p>1: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25979135" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25979135</a><p>2: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25975560" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25975560</a>
Link to the original:
<a href="https://hackernoon.com/how-google-collapsed-b6ffa82198ee" rel="nofollow">https://hackernoon.com/how-google-collapsed-b6ffa82198ee</a>
> The website is temporarily unable to service your request as it exceeded resource limit. Please try again later.<p>Not sure if this is a genuine error or the author is making some sort of point.
<i>company’s foundational principle was quietly proven false by the creator of JavaScript [...] Eich created Brave to fundamentally change the economics of the internet. [...] Disclaimers: The author owns a small number of Basic Attention Tokens (the utility token that makes Brave’s model possible)</i><p>TL;DR: This looks like a thinly disguised BAT shill. I'm an occasional Brave user (but not a BAT holder), and I'm less than convinced by this theory.
It was an interesting article, until it stumbled into it's climax (sorry Spoiler alert):<p>> "Eich created Brave to fundamentally change the economics of the internet."<p>Ehh.... Nope.<p>I think Google is struggling a lot more than people let on, but Brave isn't going to be the straw that breaks the Google's back.<p>Fundamentally, Google has lost its vision and everything since... ~2015 or so (maybe sooner) has just been about turning the dial up on Google's profits even as their platforms get less appealing. Such a disappointment after being such an awesome company early on.<p>But Brave? Seems unlikely.