> I think my counterpoint was stronger. No, what I was saying was that your counterpoint isn't a counterpoint. A counterpoint would be: Google shouldn't show n

> I think my counterpoint was stronger. No, what I was saying was that your counterpoint isn't a counterpoint. A counterpoint would be: Google shouldn't show new kinds of things on the map (such as houses, small businesses, etc.). The OP is talking about new kinds of things, while you're talking about the density of things. And the OP actually makes the same argument you're making a few paragraphs later: > we’re also seeing the argument for map personalization: Not everyone uses transit, so there might be places—such as landmarks—that are more important to some people. And when it’s life-and-death, hospitals are the most important places in the world. But how often does the average person visit a hospital? Personalized maps are better at surfacing the most appropriate places for each person; but for the default map, something still has to be chosen… and that’s what we saw above. Personalization is great, but something still has to be chosen for the default. That's why the default matters.