Google Instant has a smutty mind

However, the modern-day Bowdlers at Google don’t white you out based on what you type, but on what they predict you’re going to type.

If I type ‘blue-footed’ – it predicts I’m typing ‘blue-foooted booby’ and as ‘boobies’ is an Official Google Smutty Word, my search goes white (in fact ‘blue-foo’ is enough).

Similarly, typing ‘turn again d’ implies ‘turn again Dick Whittington’, and ‘dick’ is a an Official Google Smutty Word.

I love @kevin mark ‘s concept of “Official Google Smutty Word”; does everyone else find it odd that Google does this?

Fear Factor – Management in the Work | Tripp Babbitt’s Blog

The surprise of seeing a manager trying to understand what that entrapping information technology did to them when it was forced down their throat is almost always welcomed by the worker. 

Something that senior management need to see and realise; yes, I know “x system” helps you track costs, or gives you measures (hah!). Do you know how much it stops us doing the work?

Times paywall/payfall

Payfall reminds me how much I miss @caitlinmoran. A few stolen moments of giggling on a Friday afternoon and now it’s gone …

@rankamateur (Nicky Bramley)’s tweet reminds me of my ambivalence about the Times Paywall. I thought it was awful when they put it up. But then, with AdBlock Plus on “nuke it from orbit” setting, I never saw the ads that were meant to be supporting the free site.

I have only so much to fund my browsing; I spend mine on the Economist. Sorry @caitlinmoran and @gilescoren. Your tweets will have to suffice.

On Wikipedia, Cultural Patrimony, and Historiography

This particular book—or rather, set of books—is every edit made to a single Wikipedia article, The Iraq War, during the five years between the article’s inception in December 2004 and November 2009, a total of 12,000 changes and almost 7,000 pages.

an astonishing story. Thanks to @nevali and @jamesb for pointing to the NYT article where this was referenced.

Paypal Policy Updates

We make every effort to ensure that the information contained in our correspondence, reports, on the website(s) and given verbally by our directors, officers and staff is accurate to the best of our belief at the time the information is provided. However, we cannot guarantee the accuracy of all such information in all circumstances and contexts, and no reliance should be placed on such information by you.

You’d be ashamed if you had to say “you can’t trust anything our directors, officers or staff say”, wouldn’t you?