On Wed, 28 Apr 2021 12:42:23 -0400 Celejar <cele...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Apr 2021 12:20:58 -0400 > Stefan Monnier <monn...@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote: > > > >> FWIW, I'm pretty sure that such anectodal evidence is of no > > >> importance because you can also come up with examples where the > > >> situation is reversed. > > > Can you? > > > > I meant "you" in a very general sense: I'm pretty sure it's > > possible, but no, I haven't done the necessary work (and I'm not > > very interested in doing it either). > > That's fine, of course, but I'm just pointing out that your logic is a > bit circular: you dismiss my anecdote in support of Google's > superiority with the assumption that there exist counter-anecdotes as > well, but your only basis for this assumption seems to be the > assumption that Google isn't objectively superior ;) > > Of course, anecdotes are not data. And just to be clear, I really like > DDG, certainly for its attitude and track record of taking privacy > seriously, as well as for doing remarkably well as a competitor to > Google with what I assume is a tiny fraction of its resources. > I tend to treat Google as I do Wikipedia: unparalleled for information which is not the slightest bit politically controversial, a complete waste of time for anything that is. Not that there's all that much left in the first category now, but on things like the sizes of surface-mount electronic components, Wiki is pretty sound. -- Joe