[HN Gopher] Real World Recommendation System ___________________________________________________________________ Real World Recommendation System Author : nikhilgarg28 Score : 254 points Date : 2022-04-11 16:44 UTC (6 hours ago) (HTM) web link (blog.fennel.ai) (TXT) w3m dump (blog.fennel.ai) | kixiQu wrote: | And then all of it is thrown away and they show ads instead. :) | greesil wrote: | MANGA | ehsankia wrote: | Google -> Alphabet, then add in Microsoft, Tesla and NVIDIA. | | MANTAMAN | | https://streetsharks.fandom.com/wiki/Mantaman | vikingcaffiene wrote: | Gentle reminder to anyone reading this that your problems are | probably not FAANG problems. If you architect your system trying | to solve problems you don't have, you are gonna have a bad time. | samstave wrote: | Wow, this is something that has been a floater-in-mind for | decades ; | | I'll top it off with an interview at Twitter with the Eng MGR | ~2009-ish? | | -- | | Him: _So tell me how you would do things differnetly here at | twitter based n your experience?_ | | ME: " _Well, I have no idea what your internal processes are, | or architecture, or problems, so my previous experience wouldn | 't be relevant._" | | I'd go for the best option that suits goals. | | [This was my literal response to the question, which I thought | was a trap but responded honestly -- as a previous mgr of | teams, the "well, we did it at my last company as such"] | | Dont reply this way. <-- | | Here was his statement: | | This is a literal quote from a hiring manager for | DevOps/Engineering at Twitter: | | _" Thank god!, We have hired so many people from FB, where | that was there only job out of school, and no other experience, | and the biggest thing they told me was "well - the way we did | this at FB was... X"_ | | -- | | His biggest concern was engineering-culture-creep... | HWR_14 wrote: | Wow. That amazes me that anyone would answer that question | without knowing anything about the problem space and | implemented solutions. | | Wait, I got it, I would rewrite everything as AWS Lambdas. | That's the right answer! Screw your (almost certainly SQL) | DB, let's move it all to DynamoDB too. | samhw wrote: | > Wow, this is something that has been a floater-in-mind for | decades | | Have you literally never come across the "you're not | Google!!!" trope before now, during the whole ~decade leading | up to this very day? Gosh I envy you. | | (Also, I am reaaally struggling to understand that story. Who | is speaking? It sounds like a story within a story within a | story. I can just about piece together the gist, but I'm very | confused by all the formatting and nested quotes.) | jeffbee wrote: | "And note that you don't even have to be at FAANG scale to run | into this problem - even if you have a small inventory (say few | thousand items) and a few dozen features, you'd still run into | this problem. " | | -TFA | vikingcaffiene wrote: | Fair enough. I still think people should read stuff like this | with a healthy measure of skepticism. | habibur wrote: | > a machine learning model is trained that takes in all these | dozens of features and spits out a score (details on how such a | model is trained to be covered in the next post). | | This part was the one I was interested in. As most of the rest | are obvious. | arkj wrote: | Looks like FAANG in the title is just to get your attention. | Details are missing. | nikhilgarg28 wrote: | (Disclaimer: I'm the author of the post) | | Good feedback, noted. Will get the next post focused on | training within the next couple of days. | 1minusp wrote: | Also, how is this article different or more informative | compared to others that deal with the challenges of model | deployment/management at scale? | voz_ wrote: | This is shallow and generic almost to the point of uselessness. I | am having trouble understanding who the target audience is. | priansh wrote: | The main issue with deploying these systems right now is the | technical overhead to develop them out. Existing solutions are | either paid and require you to share your valuable data, or open | source but either abandoned (rip Crab) or inextensible (most rely | on their own DB or postgres). | | I'd love to see a lightweight, flexible recommendation system at | a low level, specifically the scoring portion. There are a few | flexible ones (Apache has one) but none are lightweight and | require massive servers (or often clusters). It also can't be | bundled into frontend applications which makes it difficult for | privacy-centric, own-your-data applications to compete with paid, | we-own-your-data-and-will-exploit-it applications. | orasis wrote: | I think we've done a pretty good job on the scoring side with a | fast and simple to use API that runs in-process: | https://improve.ai | KaiserPro wrote: | > As a result, primary databases (e.g. MySQL, Mongo etc.) almost | never work | | I mean it does. As far as I'm aware Facebook's ad platform is | mostly backed by hundreds of thousands of Mysql instances. | | But more importantly this post really doesn't describe issues of | scale. | | Sure it has the stages of recommendation, that might or might not | be correct, but it doesn't describe how all of those processes | are scheduled, coordinated and communicate. | | Stuff at scale is normally a result of tradeoffs, sure you can | use a ML model to increase a retention metric by 5% but it costs | an extra 350ms to generate and will quadruple the load on the | backend during certain events. | | What about the message passing, like is that one monolith making | the recommendation (cuts down on latency kids!) or micro | services, what happens if the message doesn't arrive, do you have | a retry? what have you done to stop retry storms? | | did you bound your queue properly? | | none of this is covered, and my friends, that is 90% of the | "architecture at scale" that matters. | | Normally stuff at scale is "no clever shit" followed by "fine you | can have that clever shit, just document it clearly, oh you've | left" which descends into "god this is scary and exotic" finally | leading to "lets spend half a billion making a new one with all | the same mistakes." | judge2020 wrote: | > . As far as I'm aware Facebook's ad platform is mostly backed | by hundreds of thousands of Mysql instances. | | Same for YouTube itself | https://www.mysql.com/customers/view/?id=750 and they use | Vitess for horizontal scaling: https://vitess.io/ | emptysea wrote: | YouTube has since migrated to Spanner, there's a podcast | episode with one of the Vitess creators that covers the | politics of the switch | efsavage wrote: | > mostly backed by hundreds of thousands of Mysql instances | | Kind of. It's part of the recipe but one you find at these | large tech companies (I've worked at FB and GOOG) is they have | the resources to bend even large/standard projects like MySQL | to their will, while ideally preserving the good ideas that | made them popular in the first place. There are | wrappers/layers/modifications/etc that eventually evolve to | subsume the original software, such that is acting more like a | library than a standalone service/application. So, for example, | while your data might eventually sit in a MySQL table, you'll | never know, and likely didn't write anything specific to MySQL | (or even SQL) to get there. | samhw wrote: | I mean, this post from a year ago makes it sound _not that | non-standard_ : https://engineering.fb.com/2021/07/22/data- | infrastructure/my... | | What you're describing sounds like you mean something on the | level of Cockroach, talking the Postgres wire protocol but | implemented entirely independently underneath (which came | indirectly out of Google). Facebook's MySQL deployment sounds | more like a heavily-patched-but-basically-MySQL installation. | I think Facebook is overanalogised to Google sometimes, as an | engineering org. | | (Admittedly I haven't worked at either whereas you have - | though I have at another FAANG fwliw - but am basing this | impression partly on what I hear from friends & partly on | plain old stuff I read on the internet.) | xico wrote: | Meta is relatively open (and open source) in how they handle | stuff, including ranking, scoring and filtering described in | the original article, but also fast inverted indexes and | approximate nearest neighbors in high-dimensional spaces. See, | for instance, Unicorn [1,2] or (at a lower level) FAISS [3]. | | [1] | http://people.csail.mit.edu/matei/courses/2015/6.S897/readin... | | [2] https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3394486.3403305 | | [3] https://faiss.ai/ | whimsicalism wrote: | I disagree - this seems quite clearly to address issues of | scale, going into multiple-pass ranking, etc. etc. | dinobones wrote: | How FAANG actually builds their recommendation systems: | | Millions of cores of compute, exabyte scale custom data stores. | Good recommendations are expensive. If you try to build a similar | system on AWS, you will spend a fortune. | | Most recommender models just use co-occurrence as a seed, this | can actually work pretty well on it's own. If you want to get | fancy then build up a vectorized form of the document with | something like an an autoencoder, then use some approximate | nearest neighbors to find documents close by. 95% of the compute | and storage is just spent on calculating co-occurrence though. | TheRealDunkirk wrote: | > Millions of cores of compute, exabyte scale custom data | stores. Good recommendations are expensive. If you try to build | a similar system on AWS, you will spend a fortune. | | And then it will be gamed, and become as useless as every other | recommendation system already going. | samhw wrote: | Also, 'millions of cores' is a ludicrously shitty, zero-clue | answer. It's like asking how Eminem makes music, and saying | 'millions of pills'. Like, yes, that's an input, but you're | missing _the entire method of creation, of converting the | crude inputs into the outputs_. | | For my money - and, for what little it's worth, I work in | this field - I think most of the impressive feats of data | science attributed to 'machine learning' are really just a | function of now having hardware capacity so insanely great | that we're able to 'make the map the size of the territory', | so to speak. These models are essentially overfitting | machines, but that's OK when (a) it's an interpolation | problem and (b) your model can just memorise the entire input | space (and deal with any inaccuracies by regularisation, | oversampling, tweaking parameters till you get the right | answers on the validation set, then talking about how 'double | descent' is a miracle of mathematics, etc). | | Don't get me wrong, neural nets are obviously not rubbish. | They are a very good method for non-convex, non- | differentiable optimisation problems, especially | interpolation. (And I'm grateful for the hype cycle that's | let me buy up cheap TPUs from Google and hack on their | instruction set to code up linear algebraic ops, but for way | more efficient optimisation methods, and also in Rust, lol.) | It's just a far more nuanced story than "this method we | discovered and hyped up for a decade in the 80s suddenly | became the key to AGI". | nixpulvis wrote: | These steps read to me like: first we filter, then we filter, | then we filter; all of this being done based on some various | orders of the data. | | The devil's in the details, which are surely domain specific and | hopefully not too morally questionable. | fmakunbound wrote: | With all of this technology applied, I am still disappointed by | Netflix's recommendations - to the point of just giving up and | doing something else. | liveoneggs wrote: | I was actually pretty impressed the other day when searching | for "shiloh" (which they didn't have) because it showed a bunch | of "related" queries to other dog movies (they also didn't | have). The available search results were a little lacking | though. | foldr wrote: | In some ways it seems like a classic case of trying to solve | the wrong problem because the wrong problem potentially has a | technical solution. The real problem is making lots of | interesting content for people to watch. If you can solve that | problem then a simple system of categories is perfectly | sufficient for people to discover content. But that's not a | technical problem, and all those engineers have to be given | something to do. | chuckcode wrote: | Do you think part of this is that Netflix has assumed zero | effort from user model? My experience has been that Netflix | does an ok job of recommendations, but fails at overall | discovery experience. There is no way for me to drive or view | content from different angles easily. I end up googling for | expert opinions or hitting up rotten tomatoes to get better | reviews. Netflix knows a ton about me and their content, but | seems to do a poor job of making their content | browseable/discoverable overall. I do like their "more like | this" feature where I can see similar titles. | imilk wrote: | Google TV has the best content discovery I've come across so | far. Recommendations across most streaming services based on | overall similar movies, different slices of the genre, and | movies with similar directors/cast members. Plus as soon as | you select another movie, you can see all the same "similar" | recommendations for that movie. | invalidOrTaken wrote: | >Do you think part of this is that Netflix has assumed zero | effort from user model? | | Talking w/a friend who works at Netflix, it sounds like this | is a warranted assumption. The way he told it, they were | tearing their hair out at one point b/c users wouldn't put | much into it. | samhw wrote: | What I don't understand about their response is: _why not | make it configurable?_ Admittedly this is my philosophy for | almost every product I work on - "make it maximally | configurable, but make the defaults maximally sane" - but | I'm baffled every time I hear someone talking about this | 'dilemma'. | | You just keep your simple interface, but allow the power | users to, say, click through to a particular menu and | change their setting - the setting in this case being ~"let | me provide feedback / configure how recommendations work". | For that kind of user, finding a 'cheat code' is actually a | gratifying product experience anyway. | aleksiy123 wrote: | I think its because the complexity of allowing | configurability isn't always worth it. Verifying it works | for all configurations becomes exponentially harder. | | I believe it can also have performance implications | especially for things like recommender systems where you | are depending a lot on caching, pre computation and | training. | invalidOrTaken wrote: | I don't disagree! | nonameiguess wrote: | Rotten Tomatoes works fine as a recommendation system. It lists | all of the new content coming out in a given week. I just read | that every week, file down to what looks interesting based on | the premise, and read a few reviews. I can usually tell pretty | easily what I'll like. No need for in-app recommendations from | any specific streaming service at all. Good old-fashioned human | expert curators. | edmundsauto wrote: | This indicates that the problem is difficult to solve at scale | and customized per person. Maybe the issue is with our | expectations - I find other people are pretty bad at | recommending things for me as well. | buescher wrote: | Maybe. Recommendation systems definitely seem to get worse as | they scale. Amazon's was incredible circa 2000. Pandora seems | to be getting worse and more repetitive. Netflix kept getting | better and better until they ended their contest and since | then they seem to have only become worse. | jeffbee wrote: | Maybe you're just disappointed with Netflix's inventory, not | their recommendations. | colinmhayes wrote: | I think it's both. I'm usually able to find decent stuff by | searching "best on netflix" with some modifiers, but I almost | never find new stuff I like by scrolling on netflix. | werber wrote: | Tangent, but I was recently thinking about how FAANG, is now | MAANG, and the definition of mange : (from a google search, lol) | mange /manj/ Learn to pronounce noun noun: mange a skin disease | of mammals caused by parasitic mites and occasionally | communicable to humans. It typically causes severe itching, hair | loss, and the formation of scabs and lesions. "foxes that get | mange die in three or four months" | | I find it oddly poetic, but, this is my last day of magic. | nitinagg wrote: | What's going wrong with Google search's recommendations every | day? | ultra_nick wrote: | Garbage data in. Garbage data out. | samhw wrote: | What? They have absolutely _tremendous_ data, the envy of any | data scientist on the planet. I don 't understand how you | could possibly describe their user data as garbage in any | conceivable way. Even search result click-and-query data | _alone_ - leaving out Android, Chrome, Cloud, and everything | else - is a stupendously invaluable, priceless asset. | | If you call that garbage, what on earth - or, for that | matter, off it - is _not_ garbage!? | lysecret wrote: | Interesting post. On thing to note, this seems to be about "on | request" ranking. E.g. googleing something and in 500ms you need | the recommended content. | | However, a lot of usecases are time insensitive rankings. Like | recommending content on netflix, spotify etc. (spotifys discover | weekly even has a one week! request time :D). | | In which case you can just run your ranking and store the recs in | your DB and its much much easier. | troiskaer wrote: | This is pretty much what both Netflix and Spotify do. I would | argue that there isn't a canonical recommendations stack that | FAANG is converging towards, and that's a direct corollary of | differing business requirements and organizational structure. | endisneigh wrote: | Is there any recommendation system people we actually happy with? | They all seem to suck in my experience | chudi wrote: | all feeds are recommendations systems, instagram, facebook, | twitter, tiktok, youtube, every single one is a recommendation | system. | notriddle wrote: | Technically, yes, but when they're talking about this sort of | thing, they mean "personal recommendation system" or | "content-based recommendation system." | | For example, the HN front page is a recommendation system if | you literally mean system-that-recommends-web-pages-to-look- | at. But it's not personalized; every visitor sees the same | front page. This fundamentally makes it a different sort of | thing. | chudi wrote: | If You have 10000 posts that You have to sort it in some | way and the user just going to see 20 of those, the sorting | is the recommendation system, people are just used to think | of products, movies and songs, but in those platforms the | users are the products | notriddle wrote: | This hardly seems like a reasonable way to characterize | Netflix, which has a personal recommendation system, | especially compared to HN, which is ad supported yet | gives the same recommendations to everyone. | charcircuit wrote: | YouTube, TikTok, and Twitter all work well for me. | mrfox321 wrote: | TikTok | colesantiago wrote: | Why TikTok in particular? What is the engineering story | behind TikTok's recommendation system? How did they get it | right? | keewee7 wrote: | TikTok seem to be learning from what the user is actually | watching and for how long and not just the user's | "Like"/"Not Interested In" actions. However it still seem | to learn from the "Not Interested In" action more than any | other platform. | pedrosorio wrote: | This is a pretty misinformed take when it's publicly | known that YouTube was already doing this (learn from | what the user is watching and for how long) the year | Bytedance was founded (2012): | | https://blog.youtube/news-and-events/youtube-now-why-we- | focu... | hallqv wrote: | Anyone have recommendations (no pun) for more in depth resources | on the subject (large scale recommendation systems)? | whiplash451 wrote: | The RecSys conference proceedings might help | lmc wrote: | Much of the field seems to be fixated on throwing massive | compute resources at models with results that can neither be | evaluated nor reproduced. | | "the Recommender Systems research community is facing a crisis | where a significant number of papers present results that | contribute little to collective knowledge [...] often because | the research lacks the [...] evaluation to be properly judged | and, hence, to provide meaningful contributions" | | https://doi.org/10.1145%2F2532508.2532513 | | More here... | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recommender_system#Reproducibi... | whimsicalism wrote: | By "the field", you surely mean the academic field. In the | industry, we run controlled experiments to validate all the | time. | | Recommender systems is one of the few areas in ML where | almost all of the knowledge is contained in industry, not | academia. | lmc wrote: | That was my thinking - anything of value is product- | specific and behind closed doors. It's not my field, but | something I see come up from time to time that seems | weirdly over-represented in ML articles. | samhw wrote: | I work on these systems, and if anything my only | complaint about the field is the propensity to solve | every optimisation problem with ML. I have seen people | solve textbook-grade linear, and even differentiable, | optimisation problems. | | And the reason it happens despite the 'invisible hand' | etc is because _it still works, it just happens to be | horrendously inefficient_. I think that 's the main area | of inefficiency in the industry: not in getting the job | done, nor even arguably in accuracy - at least not | severely - but in overcomplicating the solution[0] | because we've formed a cargo cult around one particular | method of optimisation, beyond all nuance. | | [0] I mean 'overcomplicating' in absolute terms. Of | course the very crux of my point is that, from the data | scientist's perspective, it's _not_ overcomplicated - it | 's _less_ complicated than using e.g. ILP precisely | because we have made libraries like TensorFlow so | incredibly easy and tempting to use. | ocrow wrote: | These recommendation systems take control away from individuals | over what content they see and replace that choice with black box | algorithms that don't explain why you are seeing the content that | you are or what other content was excluded. All of the companies | who have deployed these content selection algorithms could have | also given you manual choice over the content that you see, but | chose instead to let the algorithm solely determine the content | of your feed, either removing the manual option entirely or | burying it so thoroughly that no one bothers to use it. | | These algorithms are not benign. They make choices about what | information you consume, whose opinions you read, what movies you | watch, what products you are exposed to, even which politicians | messages you hear. | | When people complain about the takeover of algorithms, they don't | mean databases or web interfaces. They mean this: content | selection or preference algorithms. | | We should be deeply suspicious. We should demand greater | accountability. We should require that the algorithms explain | themselves and offer alternatives. We should implement better. | Give control back to the users in meaningful ways | | If software engineering is indeed a profession, our professional | responsibilities include tempering the damaging effects of | content selection algorithms. | KaiserPro wrote: | Did you know how a news paper used to choose what articles it | wanted to run? | | Do you know how a TV channel decides to schedule stories? | | Humans, its all humans. Looking at the metrics, and steering | stuff that feeds that metric. | | Content filters are dumb and easy to understand. seriously, | open up a fresh account at FB, instagram, twitter or tiktok. | | First it'll try and get a list of people you already know. | Don't give it that. | | Then it'll give you a bunch of super popular but click baity | influencers to follow. why? because they are the things that | drive attention. | | if you follow those defaults, you'll get a view of whats | shallow and popular: spam, tits, dicks and money. | | If you find a subject leader, for example a independent tool | maker, cook, pattern maker, builder, then most of your feed | will be full of those subjects, save for about 10% random shit | thats there to expand your subject range (mostly tits, dicks, | spam or money) | | What you'll see is stuff related to what you like and stare at. | | And thats the problem, they are dumb mirrors. Thats why you | don't let kids play with them. Thats why you don't let people | with eating disorders go on them, thats why mental health needs | to be more accessible, because some times holding up a mirror | to your dark desires is corrosive. | | Could filter designers do more? fuck yeah, be we also have to | be aware that filters are a great whipping boy for other more | powerful things. | oofbey wrote: | Off-topic, but how did Netflix manage to get itself inserted into | the FAANG acronym anyway? Their impact on the tech industry is | trivial compared to all the others. Sure, if you just take out | the N it's offensive, but we could have said "GAFA" or "FAAMG" | would be more accurate to include Microsoft in their place. | vincentmarle wrote: | There was a point in time when FAANG offered the best | compensation packages for engineers (Netflix was one of them) - | so that's where the term originated from but while it's | outdated in many respects (Microsoft is not included, Facebook | is now Meta, Google is now Alphabet etc etc) it's still sticky | for some reason. | whimsicalism wrote: | Microsoft in 2022 does not compensate as well as any of | those. Microsoft in 2021 only out-compensated Amazon. | hbn wrote: | > Facebook is now Meta, Google is now Alphabet | | Eh, the new parent company names aren't really what people | know them as still. I don't think most people are even aware | that Google has a parent company. | | I have a friend that works at Google, and that's what we say. | I don't think him or anyone would ever say he works at | Alphabet. | oofbey wrote: | Yeah, Meta will likely stick because Zuckerberg and crew | are actively trying to run away from the dumpster fire they | lit with Facebook. | | But Google is still Google, and probably always will be. | Just like Youtube is still Google, and Waymo is still | Google. | [deleted] | TacticalCoder wrote: | > "FAAMG" would be more accurate to include Microsoft in their | place | | In Europe you nearly always see "GNAFAM", which includes | Microsoft too. It's certainly weird to exclude MSFT, worth at | times more than Amazon+Meta+Netflix combined. | dljsjr wrote: | The phrase originated w/ Jim Cramer, it refers to the 5 best | performing tech stocks(or what were the best performing at the | time). Nothing to do with their impact on the field from a | technical perspective, just a business perspective. | cordite wrote: | Netflix has contributed a lot to Java micro services, see | Eureka and Hystrix. | troiskaer wrote: | as well as to ML - Netflix Prize | (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netflix_Prize) and Metaflow | (https://github.com/Netflix/metaflow) | oofbey wrote: | No question they've done some things that have had some | impact on others in the industry. But none of them are | particularly important. It's all relative. Companies like | Twitter, Uber, AirBnb have all released open source | projects or figured things out how to solve hard problems | in ways that others have emulated. | | But for every other one of the FAA(N)G companies, I can | barely work a day as a developer without touching every one | of their technologies. Yeah, Netflix got into ML years | before most, but the netflix prize exists as a distant | cautionary memory, and as an ML professional, I'd literally | never heard of metaflow before. Just sayin'. | troiskaer wrote: | > But none of them are particularly important | | Nowhere was the argument made that somehow Netflix was | more influential than Twitter/Uber/AirBnB, but your | counter-argument that somehow it's less influential | because you haven't heard of/used some projects directly | holds no ground. | samhw wrote: | > your counter-argument that somehow it's less | influential because you haven't heard of/used some | projects directly holds no ground | | Oh come on, they are indisputably right that Microsoft, | Twitter, Uber, Airbnb, hell, even Cloudflare are more | technically influential than Netflix is. | | Apple and Google would make _anyone 's_ top 5, that's his | point. No argument about it. Their products collectively | dominate anyone's life, along with MSFT. Netflix is | _maybe_ in your top 10, top 20 for sure, but it 's not up | there as one of the few 'platform that everyone's lives | are built on' techcos. | | (Like, Netflix vs Microsoft? Seriously? For that matter, | Amazon probably wouldn't be in my top 5 either, and not | only because it's not mainly a tech company. I s'pose it | depends how you define 'Amazon', and if you include AWS. | But for Netflix there's just no argument that they win a | spot there.) | troiskaer wrote: | What's your argument for Twitter/Uber/AirBnB being | indisputably more technologically influential than | Netflix? And let's please talk facts rather than | opinions. | jedberg wrote: | FAANG was created by the TV personality Jim Cramer to talk | about high growth tech stocks. At the time Netflix was doubling | every year. It was based purely on finance. | | It's now been taken over by the tech industry to be shorthand | for places that are highly selective in their hiring and tend | to work on cutting edge tech at scale. | | That being said, the impact of Netflix on tech is pretty big. | They pioneered using the cloud to run at massive scale. | oofbey wrote: | > They pioneered using the cloud to run at massive scale. | | Which is to say they were AWS's biggest early customer? | Doesn't really seem like Netflix should get the credit for | that one. | jedberg wrote: | It was a lot more than that. They developed systems and | techniques that even Amazon adopted and are still adopting | to this day. They also created a ton of open source tools | for other people to use the cloud: | | https://netflix.github.io | | Netflix tech even spawned a company to sell their open | source tools: | | https://www.armory.io | | And they codified the entire practice of Chaos Engineering: | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_engineering | hetspookjee wrote: | That stockphoto on the front page of armory.io manages to | trigger al kinds of spammy website triggers for me. | [deleted] | patmorgan23 wrote: | They were pretty influential in refining the microservices | architecture | samhw wrote: | > FAANG was created by the TV personality Jim Cramer to talk | about high growth tech stocks. At the time Netflix was | doubling every year. It was based purely on finance. | | That, and FAAG had less of a ring to it. | | _Edit: Dammit, the GP made the same observation. Oh well, I | 'm keeping it._ | jedberg wrote: | If Netflix hadn't been such high growth and not included, | Cramer probably would have gone with GAAF. :) | tempest_ wrote: | All the cool kids say GAMMA now. | aczerepinski wrote: | What is the G? | oofbey wrote: | Those who used to do no evil, but gave up on the idea as | not profitable enough. | oofbey wrote: | Not MAGMA? | ystad wrote: | Too hot I say :) | svachalek wrote: | Now I can't get Dr Evil saying MAGMA out of my mind. | errantmind wrote: | I think the acronym gained prominence before Microsoft's recent | 'commitment' to open source. Netflix also seemed to be doing | really interesting things scaling out 'disruption' to video | delivery at the time. It stuck | yukinon wrote: | FAANG was never about impact on tech industry. Otherwise, MSFT | would be part of FAANG. Instead, it's directly related to (1) | stock price and (2) compensation. | BubbleRings wrote: | Want to dive in to all this stuff but can't find a starting | point? Start with reading my patent! | | I was smart enough to see what collaborative filtering (CF) could | be early on, and to file a patent that issued. I wasn't smart | enough to make it a complicated patent, or to choose the right | partners so I could have success with it. | | But the patent makes a good way to learn how to get from "what | are your desert island 5 favorite music recordings?" over to | "here is a list of other music you might like". Basic CF, which | is at the core of a lot of this stuff. Enjoy!: | | https://whiteis.com/whiteis/SE/ | siskiyou wrote: | All I know is that Facebook's recommendation systems always show | me things that I hate to see. I suppose they may "work" at scale, | but at an individual level it's epic failure. | samstave wrote: | FB needs an Ad-Rev-Share-Model with ALL of its users... | | Imagine if FB were to pay a fraction% of how yur data was used | and paid you for it... | | It may be a small amount, but in super 4th world countries, it | could affect change in their lives... | | Now imagine that this becomes big... and it works well. | | Now imagine that the populous is aware of the hand of god above | them just pressing keys to affect land masses (yes I am | referring to the game from the 80s) | | but this cauterizes them into union building... | | So when the people realize their metrics are the product to | feed consumerism for capitalistic profits, and decide to | organize, what happens? | | Is FB going to need a military force to protect their DCs? | | --- | | With "Zuck Bucks" (I still am not sure if true) | | This makes this ultimate "company store" | | Tokens? | | So how get? | | How EARN? (What service on FB GENERATES '$ZB'?) | | How spend? | | WHAT GET? (NFTs?, Goods? Services?)? | | The entire fucking model of EVERYTHING FB DOES is to MAP | SENTIMENT! | | Sentiment is the tie btwn INTENT and SENTIMENTAL VALUE | | The idea is to map interest with emotional drivers which make | someone buy _(spend resources their time and effort went into | building up a store-of)_... | | --- | | So map out your emotinal response over N topics and forums.. | Eval your documented Online comments, NLP the fuck out of that, | see what your demos are and build this profile to you.... | | THEN THEN THEN THEN | | Offer an "earnable" (i.e. Grindable by farms and bots alike) -- | "Zuck Buck" which is a TOKEN (etymology that fucking word for | yourself) | | of value... | | Meaning, zero INTRINSIC value, Zero accountability (managed by | a central Zuck Bank) <-- Yeah fuck that) | | And the vaule both determined AND available to you via not | INTRINSIC CONTROL, nor VALUE. | | --- | | FB Bots Galore. | ParanoidShroom wrote: | >With "Zuck Bucks" (I still am not sure if true) I expected | more from this place than to believe every click bait FB | news. Of all the UX people and tons of money they throw to | into research... Yes the best option was... "Zuck bucks". | Don't get played ffs | samstave wrote: | You >quoted with no commentary.. so your point is :: TROLL? | samhw wrote: | So are you just making the punctuation up as you go, or | what? | imilk wrote: | Like many NFT/crypto posts, I have absolutely no idea whether | this is serious or a parody. | greatpostman wrote: | I've built one of these at FAANG. Generally the different parts | of the system are completely separate teams that interact through | apis and ingest systems. Usually there's a mix of online and | offline calculations, where features are stored in a nosqldb and | some simple model runs in a tomcat server at inference time, or | the offline result is just retrieved. Almost everything is | precomputed. | | We had an api layer where another team runs inference on their | model as new user data comes in, then streams it to our api which | inboards the data. | | On top of this, you have extensive A/B testing systems | splonk wrote: | I have as well, and your comment matches my experience more | than the article does. Different teams own different systems, | and there's basically no intersection between "things that | require a ton of data/computation" and "things that must be | computed online". | oofbey wrote: | Yep. The author, as a peddler of recommendations solutions, | has an incentive to convince people that this problem is very | complicated, and they should hire a consultant. | | In practice, good old Matrix Factorization works really well. | Can you beat it with a huge team and tons of GPU hours to | train fancy neural nets? Probably. Can you set up a nightly | MF job on a single big machine and serve results quickly? | Sure can. | lysecret wrote: | Yea same here. What Nosql DB did you use for these lookups? Im | currently using postgres for it but seems a bit like a waste. | Even though the array field is nice for feature vectors. | jenny91 wrote: | Presumably they mean internal stuff like google bigtable or | equivalent. (Though some version of that is now on gcp). | nickdothutton wrote: | If you can possibly precompute it. Precompute it. | [deleted] | rexreed wrote: | Isn't this obvious list-building promotion for a company (Fennel) | that sells recommendation systems? | | "Fennel AI: Building and deploying real world recommendation | systems in production Launched 18 hours ago" | | Caveat reader. | [deleted] | warent wrote: | Nothing wrong with some content marketing. They provide value | to people in return for getting exposure to their brand. Simple | healthy quid pro quo | imilk wrote: | I'll never understand why people think this is a valid | criticism of an article, rather than pointing out an issue they | have with the actual content of the article. There's nothing | inherently wrong with a company sharing info about the space | they operate in. In fact, it should be encouraged as long as | what they share is useful. | notafraudster wrote: | It's a short-hand for the treatment of the subject being | pretty shallow and non-descript, which seems to apply to this | article exactly. I read this and didn't learn anything. | ZephyrBlu wrote: | Do you work on recommendations or something similar as part | of your job? I don't and I found the article interesting. | imilk wrote: | Saying the article is "pretty shallow and non-descript: is | much shorter and more useful than what they posted. | notafraudster wrote: | Right, but then it starts a meta-conversation about why | the article got posted, or even written. It doesn't have | the down-the-rabbit hole trait of an individual project | of passion, or the sort of authoritative voice of a | conference talk or even a Netflix blog post, it doesn't | really speak to specific actionable technologies so it's | not the kind of onboarding a Toward Data Science post | would be. And that meta conversation inevitably leads to, | oh, it's a marketing funnel. So just saying "this is | content marketing" I think is a shibboleth for the entire | conversation that starts with "pretty shallow and non- | descript". | | Of course I didn't write the original comment and there's | something to say for flag-and-move-on or whatever, and | other people did enjoy it. I'm just saying I understand | the impulse to short-circuit the entire tedious | conversation! | HWR_14 wrote: | It provides more information. It's shallow and non- | descript because it's an ad is the argument. I don't know | if I believe that here. It's a blurry line with sponsored | content. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-04-11 23:00 UTC)