8 minutes ago, fdsa said:

yep, it shows fake amount of pages for a few years already. First it's "99999999999999 results found" but once you scroll to page 5-10 it becomes "228 results found"

For sure. 

 

So much of what was easily searchable, 10 years ago, in Google search, is no longer easily accessible. This seems particularly true for image searches. 

 

Image searches using Google, these days, mostly coughs up krappola for sale. 

 

Is this due to copyright restrictions? Local government restrictions? 

 

Or is this due to a Google policy designed to show mostly whatever will drive ad clicks? 

 

Remember Altavista? 

 

We once believed in the dream of using the internet to gain unfettered access to almost unlimited information, some giant Free Library in the sky. 

 

But these days, our access to information is becoming evermore severely throttled. 

 

Instead, anytime one does an image search, one gets pages and pages of nothing more than garbage, mostly women in hot pants for sale. 

 

Can anyone explain, exactly, why? 

 

Why has Google Search changed so radically just within the past very few years? 

 

What might be a possible solution? 

 

What might it feel like to be able to sit at one's computer terminal and have access to every piece of information stored on Google's servers? 

 

Would one, then, in such a case, not feel like God? 

 

Google, in fact, is the closest mankind has ever come to knowing God. And, if we wish to know more about Google, then we only need read the Tanakh.

 

Does Google care about us? 

Does God care about us? 

 

No need to wonder, because... 

 

Just recall the the time Google commanded Abraham to sacrifice his only son Isaac on Moriah. 

 

This is how much Google cares about us. 

 

Maybe we should offer up a burnt offering? 

 

 

On 11/30/2022 at 1:26 PM, GammaGlobulin said:

Is this due to copyright restrictions? Local government restrictions? 

I believe Google is "shorting costs" by dropping 99% of their hardware which was serving the search service.

Most of the public never goes further than the first 1-2 pages of the search results, why keep all these 99999 pages of search results when you could just show a fake amount (to please the audience and fool the investors) while actually serving just 5-10 pages?

It's not only the 2 stage authentication, every time I use gmail they are pestering mre to give them my home address too.

2 minutes ago, lungbing said:

It's not only the 2 stage authentication, every time I use gmail they are pestering mre to give them my home address too.

I guess I am missing out as have been using Gmail for years and never been asked for anything - it just works and is open in tab when I activate Chrome - if close tab by mistake just type 'mail' in address bar and it is back - no need for any authentication or log in.  As for Google search appreciate having search results for Thailand that location provides but do wish it could be done without using Thai year dates.

I've enabled 2FA on pretty much every account. For Google I enabled it a few years before it became mandatory.

 

I recently disabled 2FA on Twitter (SMS) because some advise that if/when that system breaks or is curtailed you wouldn't be able to log in.

 

2FA on Google is really simple and hardly onerous. The offer quite a few options, I use my phone or FIDO key.

 

Google is doing this to essentially protect customers, and they've reduced hacks by significant numbers.

 

Consumers are free to decide to use other services if they find Google's 2FA too "authortarian".

 

In the painfully excruciating style of the OP (moved to Ignore), you're Free to Decide...

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7SO67RydKc

 

On 12/1/2022 at 5:28 PM, fdsa said:

I believe Google is "shorting costs" by dropping 99% of their hardware which was serving the search service.

Most of the public never goes further than the first 1-2 pages of the search results, why keep all these 99999 pages of search results when you could just show a fake amount (to please the audience and fool the investors) while actually serving just 5-10 pages?

Things, they are achanging. 

Google was once a fairly peerless company.

Google is lost.

Google has lost its way.

 

 

RIP Passwords? Passkey support rolls out to Chrome stable

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/12/rip-passwords-passkey-support-rolls-out-to-chrome-stable/

 

 

https://developers.google.com/identity/passkeys/supported-environments

Google may be going the way of bustles and top hats.

 

https://thenewdaily.com.au/finance/2022/12/12/alan-kohler-chatgpt-world-changed/?utm_source=Adestra&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Morning News - 20221212

Use DuckDuck Go instead:   https://duckduckgo.com

 

They say they don't track you.

23 minutes ago, bamnutsak said:

RIP Passwords? Passkey support rolls out to Chrome stable

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/12/rip-passwords-passkey-support-rolls-out-to-chrome-stable/

 

 

https://developers.google.com/identity/passkeys/supported-environments

Did you read the link - only for Windows 11 - 70% of us are using Windows 10.  Much ado about nothing.

4 minutes ago, lopburi3 said:

Did you read the link - only for Windows 11 - 70% of us are using Windows 10.  Much ado about nothing.

Yes, I did.

 

Second big issue: Did everybody catch that OS listing at the top? Google supports Windows 11 with passkeys—not Windows 10—which is going to make this a tough sell. Statcounter has Windows 11 at 16 percent of the total Windows install base, with Windows 10 at 70 percent. So if you happen to make a passkey account, you could only log in on newer Windows computers.

 

 

 

 

On 10/28/2022 at 10:10 PM, Bangkok Barry said:

 According to Consumer Reports, it is technically possible that your smartphone is listening, but not practical. In one study, researchers used an automated test program to analyze over 17,000 popular apps and did not find a single app that activated a phone's microphone and leaked audio data.

Can you please link to the article you quote summarize.

4 minutes ago, JimmyJ said:

Can you please link to the article you quote summarize.

https://www.michigan.gov/ag/consumer-protection/consumer-alerts/consumer-alerts/shopping/is-my-smartphone-spying-on-me#:~:text=According to Consumer Reports%2C it,microphone and leaked audio data.

 

I suggest also that you Google whether phones 'spy' on us. Plenty of info to be found there.

On 11/1/2022 at 11:28 AM, Dart12 said:

While despising google and limiting as much as I can. Especially for searches for information

There is nothing that compares to their local offline biz search and maps out there unfortunately.  I am currently unable/willing to give those services up at this juncture .  

"...local offline biz search...".

Not sure what you mean by this?

An aspect of Google Maps?

 

On 10/28/2022 at 9:23 AM, Dart12 said:

these are only annoying when they require a 'real' number and will not accept a VOIP.  

these are done for your protection, not annoyance.

However Google is a complete invansive company where teh cEO says you do not deserve privacy and need their overwatch on you.

As does FB, Twitter, TikTok, IG, Amazon, and more.  Your cell phone now is an actual spy device against you with the microphone on at all time recording you (yes, this is real).  We actually pay for  and install the government and tech to spy on us for our little convenniences in life.

Correct, if are not paying for the product, you are the product?

On 10/28/2022 at 10:10 PM, Bangkok Barry said:

In one study, researchers used an automated test program to analyze over 17,000 popular apps and did not find a single app that activated a phone's microphone and leaked audio data.

did they analyze any app made by Google? I'd love to see a report on "com.google.android.gsf" and "com.google.android.gms" for example.

https://aseannow.com/topic/1122011-expats-keeping-a-phone-number-in-their-citizenship-country-aka-magicjack-not-working/

On 12/12/2022 at 11:12 AM, JimmyJ said:

"...local offline biz search...".

Not sure what you mean by this?

An aspect of Google Maps?

 

Yes. For information on local businesses, hours, location, reviews, directions, etc.  Google can't be beat with this and I still trust what they show me for local.  Not a lot to lie about.

Unlike topics now where they are brainwashing the next generation with links to articles such as "yes. men can have babies" if you would ask "Can men have babies?"  and a whole bunch of other BS that has erupted since teh pandemic.

World gone mad.

On 11/30/2022 at 1:26 PM, GammaGlobulin said:

For sure. 

 

So much of what was easily searchable, 10 years ago, in Google search, is no longer easily accessible. This seems particularly true for image searches. 

 

Image searches using Google, these days, mostly coughs up krappola for sale. 

 

Is this due to copyright restrictions? Local government restrictions? 

 

Or is this due to a Google policy designed to show mostly whatever will drive ad clicks? 

 

Remember Altavista? 

 

We once believed in the dream of using the internet to gain unfettered access to almost unlimited information, some giant Free Library in the sky. 

 

But these days, our access to information is becoming evermore severely throttled. 

 

Instead, anytime one does an image search, one gets pages and pages of nothing more than garbage, mostly women in hot pants for sale. 

 

Can anyone explain, exactly, why? 

 

Why has Google Search changed so radically just within the past very few years? 

 

What might be a possible solution? 

 

What might it feel like to be able to sit at one's computer terminal and have access to every piece of information stored on Google's servers? 

 

Would one, then, in such a case, not feel like God? 

 

Google, in fact, is the closest mankind has ever come to knowing God. And, if we wish to know more about Google, then we only need read the Tanakh.

 

Does Google care about us? 

Does God care about us? 

 

No need to wonder, because... 

 

Just recall the the time Google commanded Abraham to sacrifice his only son Isaac on Moriah. 

 

This is how much Google cares about us. 

 

Maybe we should offer up a burnt offering? 

 

 

They used to show me hwat I wanted to find out, and show me real answers to questions I'd ask. 

Now they show me what they want me to believe.

RE:  images and videos.

I remember when you could request a scene from a movie or show and if you described it even ok you would get the exact clip.  Same with images.  Now you get zip and a bunch of stock photos.

Like it became "dumb" or doesn't have the 'tech" to find it suddenly.

Such a shame.  It was fantastic while it lasted.

On 12/1/2022 at 7:48 PM, lungbing said:

It's not only the 2 stage authentication, every time I use gmail they are pestering mre to give them my home address too.

I think you need to check where those messages are actually from. I use Gmail extensively (I have 5 different Gmail accounts that I use for different purposes) and I've never been asked for my address.

 

What you're describing sounds like it might be a phishing attempt.

On 10/28/2022 at 6:13 PM, GammaGlobulin said:

Is the tiny bit of extra security worth all this trouble?

Two factor auth is not a tiny bit of extra security, it stops you being the low hanging fruit.

 

IMHO, for any account that is important to you or would cause any kind of loss if it was hacked, if 2FA is available then ALWAYS use it.

1 hour ago, Woof999 said:

IMHO, for any account that is important to you or would cause any kind of loss if it was hacked, if 2FA is available then ALWAYS use it.

I'd argue with that - it highly depends on the exact type of 2FA used.

If the 2FA is of the type which is totally under your control - e.g. fully usable offline, capable of making a backup, etc, then ALWAYS use it. A good example is TOTP 2FA, hardware or software doesn't matter.

If the 2FA is a bullshít which relies on a bunch of third parties not under your control - e.g. unusable offline, impossible to create a backup, etc - then consider it VERY carefully. An example is SMS 2FA to your phone or a USB security token.

4 minutes ago, fdsa said:

An example is SMS 2FA to your phone or a USB security token.

Are those 2 examples of ones you would use or wouldn't?

17 minutes ago, Woof999 said:

Are those 2 examples of ones you would use or wouldn't?

would not, because I do not control them.

i.e. a mobile provider used by the target website could fail and won't send the SMS, my mobile provider could fail and won't receive the SMS, the USB token could break, etc. All this stuff could not happen with simple and reliable 2FA system such as TOTP (commonly referred to as "Google Authenticator app" but does not have to be used with this exact app)

8 minutes ago, fdsa said:

would not, because I do not control them.

i.e. a mobile provider used by the target website could fail and won't send the SMS, my mobile provider could fail and won't receive the SMS, the USB token could break, etc. All this stuff could not happen with simple and reliable 2FA system such as TOTP (commonly referred to as "Google Authenticator app" but does not have to be used with this exact app)

Interesting. If Microsoft Authenticator or equivalent isn't availabe then SMS is my go to choice. I'd much rather have 2FA, even if there is a (very small) risk that it is unavailable than an account protected by nothing more than a password. If me being locked out for a short period while still knowing my account is far more secure then otherwise then all is good. Typically there is still an option to regain control of an account quickly even if 2FA isn't available.

 

However I'm totally with you that a decent Authenticator would be my absolute preference. All of my critical apps use it. Email I can always get to with other methods. Bank account I can still access via branch or ATM card and my PornHub account I can probably do without for maybe up to an hour.