Only letters, no words. Who owns the alphabet on google.com? When you look for the letters of the alphabet with google instant switched on a lot of brands will come to your mind. It’s basically the big players amongst the online shops and social networks.
Some people argue that you can find everything on the web. I would say the algorithms change the way we look up and find things. On the one hand the web has become a place to spend (and earn) your time and money. On the other hand, compared to an encyclopedia or dictionary where people used to look up things in the last century, the google search field is much less a place to learn. It’s all about consuming your money and time by providing an accelerated search experience. Just have a look at the following list of search queries and keep it in mind, the next time you just want to look up a word you don’t know on google:
Is it now…!?
I count this statement quite disputable actually. Why?
All it takes is ONE son of a bitch to contradict it!
ONE son of a bitch who neither likes being nice to the nice nor to the non-nice and your nice statement is statistically invalid. After all, it takes just ONE counter piece to falsify a general statement.
So let’s have a bit of a look at this whole niceness business.
For real sons of a bitch it is certainly not nice to be nice to the nice because it is much nicer to be not nice at all, neither to the nice nor to the non-nice.
They get a much higher pay-off from the non-nice not being nice to them as that justifies their own non-niceness.
The martyrer crowd, however, likes being nice to the non-nice because they are martyrers and would rather be nice to a non-nice and not get a pay-off, hence justifying their martyrer existence, than being nice to the nice and have nothing to keep their nice mind occupied with.
And what defines “the nice” after all? How can we know if the nice are nice before we were nice to them? OK, I grant them this: Once we have detected a non-nice, there isn’t really a point being nice.
Hey, I see the solution! If we shift the focus from the object to the verb, substract all the redundant niceness to the non-nice, all we are left with is the being nice to the nice.
Well, It’s nice, isn’t it?
Furthermore, “It’s nice to be important but it’s more important to be nice.”
But to whom?
Considering the fact that in the night of our conception, we had several millions of opponents to whom we weren’t actually nice, and that thus WE, you and me, made it here, isn’t it just nice to think:
“It’s nice to BE”?
Ehrlich?
Ich halte diese Aussage für diskutabel. Warum?
Es bedarf genau EINES Kotzbrockens, um es zu widerlegen.
EIN Kotzbrocken, der weder gern nett zu den Netten noch zu den Nicht-Netten ist, und Dein nettes Argument ist statistisch ungültig. Es bedarf nämlich genau EINES Gegenstücks, um eine Verallgemeinerung zu widerlegen.
Also schauen wir uns dieses ganze Geschäft mit der Nettigkeit einmal an. Für richtige Kotzbrocken lohnt es sich nicht, nett zu den Netten zu sein, weil es sich eigentlich gar nicht lohnt, nett zu sein, weder zu den Netten noch zu den Nicht-Netten. Vielleicht kommt die größte Rückmeldung noch von den Nicht-Netten, deren Nicht-Nettigkeit der eigenen Nicht-Nettigkeit eine Existenzberechtigung gibt.
Die Märtyrertruppe aber mag es eher, nett zu den Nicht-Netten zu sein als nett zu den Netten zu sein. Die fehlende Rückmeldung der Nicht-Netten nämlich erklärt wieder ihr Märtyrertum und ist besser als nett zu den Netten zu sein, die dann auch nett sind. Nur ihre nette Seele hat dann nichts zum Grübeln.
Wie definiert man nun aber die Netten? Woher wissen wir, ob die Netten nett sind, bevor wir nett zu ihnen gewesen sind?
OK, eines rechne ich ihnen an: Haben wir erst einmal einen Nicht-Netten enttarnt, lohnt es sich auch nicht, nett zu ihm zu sein. Hey, ich sehe eine Lösung! Verschieben wir den Fokus vom Objekt auf das Verb und substrahieren all die überflüssige Nettigkeit zu den Nicht-Netten, ist alles, was übrig bleibt, die Nettigkeit zu den Netten.
Das ist doch nett, oder?
Außerdem, “Es ist nett, wichtig zu sein aber wichtiger, nett zu sein.”
Aber zu wem?
Bedenken wir, dass wir in der Nacht unserer Empfängnis mehrere Millionen Mitbewerber hatten, zu denen wir nun nicht gerade nett waren, dass WIR, Du und ich, es aber daher bis hierher geschafft haben, ist es nicht einfach nett, zu denken,
English speaking people, according to google’s algorithm, are looking for one book: Why do man have nipples? A supposed to be funny book, although not all people would agree with this particular American sense of humor. Other shocking questions are: Why are Michael Jackson’s kids white? Or even worse: Why are all black people so ugly? Do real people ask such silly questions millions of times? Or do they adapt their behavior and their questions to supposed to be smart machines like google’s search engine?
As for Germans, it’s not much better. They are redirected by google’s smart cloud algorithm to the presumably dumbest dialogue of porn history:
MAN: Warum liegt hier überhaupt Stroh rum? (Why is there straw lying around?)
WOMAN: Warum hast du denn eine Maske auf? (And why do you wear a mask?)
The answer is obvious even though not logic at all.
Well, Germans are concerned about the translation of the “#1 New York Times Bestseller” on men’s nipples as well, although the review on amazon is rather devastating. They seem to be less concerned about people’s skin colors and more interested in the blue of the sky. And of course, history (Why the Berlin Wall was built?) and, as goes a German saying, the “most beautiful time of the year”, Christmas: Why do we celebrate Christmas?
For French people living in a laical country does not at all mean that people don’t ask religious questions. On the contrary: “Why don’t muslims eat pork?” The answer is given by a christian American on youtube. The blue of the sky seems to be even more important for the French than for their European neighbors. The Berlin Wall is interesting, too. And with their transatlantic friends they share a concern about Michael Jackson and other black people.
The Russians, of course, still like personality cult. And they seem to be concerned about only one person. Well, Lenin is important, too, although a mushroom. And why did Peter the Great study in Holland? Let them rest in peace, the latter died a long time ago, so google’s algorithm tries to direct the users to the answer of an unasked but important question: Why is Putin a crab? To be clear, it is a simple misunderstanding. Putin was talking about his eight year’s presidency in 2008 presenting himself “having worked like a slave (kaK RAB) on a galley”. Someone understood crab on a galley. And soon Putin became a crab. Now people understandably ask “why”?
Well, at least Russians are clever enough to be concerned about the algorithm suggesting such silly questions if someone simply types “why”, asking: Why does google suggest that Putin’s a crab?
Humans are still out there in the crowd. Fortunately!
Autocomplete is a feature provided by many web browsers, email clients and search engines. The program is trying to predict a word or a phrase that the user wants to type in. Sometimes it's funny, sometimes it's poetry, and very often it's really weird.
