If you word a question correctly, you can also find evidence for almost any belief with Google (it is Nietzsche, you ask Google, and Google asks you). It is act

If you word a question correctly, you can also find evidence for almost any belief with Google (it is Nietzsche, you ask Google, and Google asks you). It is actually quite bizarre to have a conversation with someone online, that person has literally no real knowledge of the topic, they pepper you with "sources" (usually those sources do not provide evidence for what they are saying, they don't know enough to know that), and then (and this is very 2020s) act outraged when you point they are wrong and have no actual knowledge of the topic beyond Google. In my experience, these people have usually integrated Google fully into their own perception of knowledge. They view themselves as totally rational, their views are all evidence-based because they can type the magic phrase into Google and get justification...but, of course, the feeling comes before the source and they have no real understanding of what "evidence" actually looks like. It is very odd trying to have a conversation with someone who is totally irrational but believes heavily in rationality (this is the "source? source? source?" meme of Reddit). I think this is distinct from the SO stuff. Programming languages are very explicit so it is easy to forget exactly how to do something basic if you do it infrequently (for example, I can never remember how to get an env variable in Python, I do it in every project but usually only a handful of times per project...it is easy to forget) Once you get into more complex problems, you can look stuff up on SO but you still won't be able to do it unless you actually understand what you are copying (in my experience, I have usually copied something, something is slightly different, and then I spend time going through it/reworking/understanding).