Yeah, contagious makes it sound like you are asking about person to person spread, which I get you’re not, but I don’t think that one is necessarily on google.
Huh? You asked a question using “wrong” terminology and it still gave you the information you needed?
Well that’s Google’s fault too. My search was for “poison ivy clothes wash” in an attempt to confirm that my washing machine won’t be permanently ruined by doing a load of contaminated clothes. I only clicked on the somewhat related question out of curiosity. If I didn’t already know the answer and I accepted Google’s headline as the answer to the question it posed I could be in for a very bad time.
But the headline is completely factual (although not what you wanted to know) and seems even Google had sense it wasn’t actually what you wanted to know so it gave enough extra context for you to figure it out without having to click anything.
ETA - noticed you said you were just clicking around at this point.
Actually this really got me curious, seems you ran afoul because you tried to do Google job for it by shortening your questions.
If you just googled will my washing machine be permanently ruined by doing a load of poison ivy contained clothes?
The questions/answers it comes up with seem pretty helpful
It’s not really. The question it’s attempting to answer is “how long is poison ivy contagious on clothes?” If you want to be nitpicky about the definition of contagious referring to human to human transmission, “on clothes” is a nonsensical addition. The only way the question makes sense is if you take it to mean “can I get a poison ivy rash via contact with contaminated clothes?” and the answer to that is certainly yes. If you’re in contact with a person still wearing contaminated clothes, you’re likely to get a rash. Once you involve “on clothes” there’s no situation I can think of where you’d say the rash can’t be spread.
The whole search term including “clothes” should be an indication to Google that I’m interested in the effects of poison ivy on clothes. So your assertion is that Google presented relevant questions to me that weren’t actually relevant to my search, I’d only spot the difference by being nitpicky about the definition of a term I didn’t even search for or by reading the full excerpt (which kind of defeats the purpose of presenting relevant questions with condensed answers), the headline answer is dangerously wrong except in the case where it’s answering a question unrelated to clothes, and all of that is fine and/or a result of a poor search? I’m going to have to disagree.
But the engine showed you exactly what you wanted to know in the sentence explanation that didn’t require clicking anything extra? Like it would be almost physically impossible for a human to read just the headline and not see the sentence below it the way it’s presented visually? I could see it problematic if another bot was asking Google the question and just processing the first words but seems the response does a great job of both answering the question and educating more on the topic in general
ETA but I do agree it would be better for it to lead with the second sentence than first sentence
ETA2- thinking more I do wonder if Google just got lucky that they article just happened to address the actual question about clothing
Would that not help Trump’s chances quite a bit?
I kind of disagree with this too. I think you’re assuming a base knowledge that the plant oil is everything. If I was less informed about the mechanism of poison ivy rashes and less skeptical of Google’s results I think my chain of logic would look something like:
*Sees the suggested question, decides it’s relevant, clicks for answer, again assuming that the answer will be related to clothes in some way since that’s in the question.
*Headline says “poison plant rashes aren’t contagious.” Great news! So I don’t need to worry about my contaminated clothes? Let me read more.
*“Plant oil lingers for years until washed off.” That seems less good. But the headline said it’s not contagious, so maybe that’s not a problem?
*“The rash will occur only where plant oil has touched the skin.” Still trying to square this with the headline answer. Does this mean I need plant to skin contact to catch anything? Intermediate contact through clothes reduces the concentration enough to avoid consequences? There are probably several ways to square this logically that I know are wrong, but someone searching for this info may not.
If you took the headline out and just asked me to follow the logical consequences of the excerpt, yes I think most people would conclude that touching oil on clothes will likely give you a rash. But the whole sequence is so confusing it’s impossible for someone without a preexisting knowledge of poison ivy to follow. The question asks about contagion potential on clothes. The first sentence in the excerpt addresses this but you’d need to know it’s possible to transfer the oil from the clothes to your skin and it’s the oil that causes the rash. The headline says the rash isn’t contagious. But this is pulling solely from the second sentence in the excerpt, which has nothing to do with contaminated clothes.
I definitely see where your coming from, I think I more just excited to see that searching for something online leads to something reasonable from CDC instead of someone promoting essential oil cures or something
Probably. I guess they should wait to raise rates until after Trump wins in November.
Trump is going to behead JPow on national TV for causing all the bidenflation and appoint a lackey to reinstitute 0% rates immediately.
1 Like
Of all the things @commonWealth had to be right about over the last year, it had to be the thing that would fuck up all of our lives the absolute most?
Yeah, not great. I’m not very optimistic from here either. Ruling out rate hikes seems like a bad move by the Fed, and QE seems stupid too. They’ve done a good job overall, but how they handle the next 6-12 months is pretty crucial.
Yeah I’m genuinely curious how long we can sustain these interest rates without something important not being able to be financed and stuff really breaking in a serious way.
Yeah I mean CRE is the obvious one, residential real estate perhaps.
It’s amazing how willing Americans are to spend spend spend money. 7% mortgages, 10% car loans, doesn’t matter.
The market gets basically the best news possible and does a swan dive into the close. Not great!
Apple with the casual $110,000,000,000 buyback, NBD.