Sometimes a writer will use what they feel is a more recognizable but ‘technically incorrect’ word as a colloquialism for a less-used term that’s more accurate, and then go into more detail in the article, but it’s good and proper to wrap that colloquialism in apostrophes (‘air quotes’).

But in this specific case, it was ruled that Google has a monopoly on general website searches and that they have utilized a variety of anti-competitive practices to bolster their presence as such.

Not dissimilar to Microsoft’s antitrust case in the late 90s, specifically regarding Internet Explorer. It was a very small chunk of a much larger antitrust suit but they were found to have used Windows in order to stifle competition for web browsers and maintain their standing as the dominant browser (they also leveraged their market share for Windows and IE with OEMs and ISPs respectively but I’m digressing).

Microsoft was ordered to split, or spin off their browser business into a different entity, but they settled with DOJ on appeal (probably what we’ll see come of this - Google will probably make a big long list of things they will change or no longer engage in, and the government will feel as though all those changes will be sufficient remedy)

For me it’s the difference between a preponderance of evidence suggesting such, and something being applied and proven until any doubt is removed.

For example, I was trying to find studs in drywall recently (last house was plaster and lathe), and looking at things Socratically, I could use a stud finder but I might be drilling into conduit or a pipe. So I was like “I can use magnets to hit drywall screws to try to confirm the presence of a stud”, and it seems reasonable, but I’ve never attempted it in practice, and there could be all sorts of things a magnet could hit, since I’ve no experience with drywall, how close a steel pipe could be, any of that. So it’s a belief. It’d be rather arrogant of me to accept this as a reliable method without testing this method, drill through a pipe and wind up with egg on my face.

So, I tested this by getting two magnets to stick vertically, then measured 16" out, got 2 more magnets to stick vertically, kept doing that until I hit half a dozen spots, all 16" apart. Drilled a pilot hole, felt resistance and the smell of wood, drilled a couple more.

I think somewhere between mounting a flat screen to fixing 3 closet shelves it became knowledge, not sure exactly when, but all the doubts were removed and it never blew up in my face. I can just waltz in a room and sink a bunch of holes in the right spot now without being skeptical of some electronic stud finder.

I guess what I mean to say is that testing something and having it consistently work and be reproducible is what leads to knowledge imo

Pretty much.

AI: You don’t have to use plastic! Silicone, graphite, ceramics, glass, woods, and aluminum can all be used as substitutes and often have more desirable physical properties for specific applications.

CEO: I hear you, I really do, but scientists already recommended this and we’ve already done numerous analyses that have all concluded that it’d be too costly to implement and would leave us with products that aren’t competitive.

CEO: …Could you figure out how to increase our gross margins by suggesting changes to these designs?

AI: Sure! We can start by replacing those braze-on threaded nuts with a plastic clamp. I suppose that lag bolt could be plastic as well.

The problem is a confluence of flaws related to capitalism and psychology that allows guys like these to be as they are, gives them ample opportunity to speak, and compels others to listen.

Eric Schmidt and people like him have so much money and influence that they’re presented the opportunity to sit down with policy makers and use media as a megaphone to the point that his voice alone is louder than tens of millions of dissenters and the collective group is able to speak over the entire scientific community.

We’ve normalized it to the point that he can pitch an idea that is as existentially catastrophic as this, and the article writer spins it as some profound statement worthy of deeper discussion.

The CEO of Starbucks attempted to justify flying across state in a jet in order to commute to work, and a lot of people either accept it as some sort of tenet of capitalism or attempt to play the devil’s advocate as to why something like that would be deemed necessary by a person. And while he’s doing that, he’s not univerally lambasted for it, policy doesn’t change to prohibit that, and we just squabble amongst ourselves about the merits or necessity.

But as long as guys like these continue to receive money, they and their lobbyists will be chanting the same mantra