5 ms·
Hmm, let's try this in Google: "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez slams": About 73,300 results "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez eats": About 109 results "Alexandria Ocasio-C
by 0-_-0 5y ago
Hmm, let's try this in Google:
"Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez slams": About 73,300 results
"Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez eats": About 109 results
"Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez sleeps": 1 result
"Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez debates": About 173 results
"Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez proposes": About 5,880 results
"Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez discusses": About 1,150 results
Damn, you were right! Also surprised that AOC never sleeps.
- Clubber 5y ago>Also surprised that AOC never sleeps. Well, she slept once according to your results.
- soperj 5y agothat result was actually referring to her never sleeping.
- azinman2 5y agoUnless you paged thru these and manually counted yourself, do not trust Google’s number of returned results. It’s effectively a random number generator. Source: I’ve worked for Google.
- jakeva 5y agoSurely it's closer to an estimate than purely random?
- azinman2 5y agoDo not use it for any comparisons. It is not what you think it is. It's largely there to impress you with how big Google is, and at this point, more historical inertia than anything else. Here's a bit of outside analysis that's fun to read: https://blog.xkcd.com/2011/02/04/trochee-chart/ https://blog.xkcd.com/2011/02/04/trochee-chart/
- anm89 5y agoOf course it is not very rigorous but those results seem to indicate a pattern to the contrary.
- anm89 5y agoha, amazing