3 ms·
> 2. It can't/won't be accurate. >3. Therefore it's fine to provide a count 10 billion times to (sic) large. LOL, what? No way!
by moralestapia 4y ago
> 2. It can't/won't be accurate.
>3. Therefore it's fine to provide a count 10 billion times to (sic) large.
LOL, what? No way!
- MichaelCollins 4y agoWhen I say the leap from 2 to 3 is dodgy, I meant that as a bit of dry understatement. It's insane. But to even get to point 2 you need to first assume point 1, which is that Google is somehow compelled to provide a result count. They aren't. They could simply remove the result count and not say anything about it, then they wouldn't ""need"" to lie about it.