Received a share.google link and checked what it did: It redirects to something with URL format "https://www.google.com/share.google?q=SOME_CODE", which is a normal page that IS the target as far as curl and such tools are concerned but redirects on the browser probably using Javascript, so it will not redirect it with our normal tools. It will need custom code or Javascript execution. So, they knew what they were doing and used their powers for evil, as they usually do now.
Oh yeah, that history search is absolute garbage and has been so for a few years now, it's sometimes easier to do a normal YT search, i've been tempted many times to do a periodic Takeout and use the result to do a proper local search, but honestly feels like too much work for the purpose
For those of us who have never played any of them, is it suggested you go through 1 and 2 first? Is there a recommended play order? Or just "Jump into 3 and forget about it"?
One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.
I've heard this described as "the 1% Rule", which more or less goes like: In online communities, 1% of the users generate 90% of the content, 9% of the users create 10% of the content by reacting to, modifying or generally interacting with that 1%, and the other 90% of people are lurkers. This fits quite well with what I've seen on online communities myself for decades. So, if you alienate that 1%, your community will eventually either disappear or become a hollow reflection of what it used to be.
Only if it actually worked as the salespeople said it does, we have used this tech enough to know that it very much does not do what they say it can do
Oh no we're never forgetting that, or the fact that shortly after he used even MORE money than what the UN proposed to buy Twitter instead