Google does not have a monopoly on search. Bing / DuckDuckGo works just fine.
Around 82% of search engine requests are issued through Google. Bing around 10%. I don't know if we just have differing definitions of "monopoly," but Google is the default on all Android devices, almost every non-Microsoft browser, and probably on Apple products as well. And most users don't know enough or care enough to ever change from that.
Let's not pretend like google does not have a monopoly on search engines, maps, and shortform video content. Also, their cloud ecosystem might be second behind AWS, but it's still fucking enormous and makes them truckloads of money.
SCP-196
Not to try too hard to explain the joke but I think the core concept being highlighted here is one of a perceived discrepancy between "diversity inclusive descriptors" and terms that imply "otherness." For example, a white person might feel uncomfortable using the term "black" but would be comfortable with terms like "person of color" and "African-American." Linguistically, this might be because "person of color" implies that the individual is first and foremost a person and that their color, in an ethnic sense, is an additive quality to their "personness." I'm a person. You're a person. We're all...persons. That sort of thing. Similarly, a person who is African-American is, much like the (I'm going to assume American) white speaker, also American. It's the idea of an immediately identifiable, if unspoken, shared quality.
Right. That's why I didn't say "it's impossible for things to be this way," but instead said "this is what I've seen." It's possible that I've just happened to see the worst of long term relationships by virtue of bad luck or environment. I don't discount that possibility and I'm not saying that my limited experience of the world represents the sum total of all human potential.
Every single long term relationship I've ever been witness to has been defined by either eventual resentment between partners, or a pervasive sense of apathy between them. The people I've seen who really "make it last" aren't affectionate towards one another after being together for decades: they're codependent. One person supports another person's narcissism and the other person facilitates their partner's alcoholism. That sort of thing.
On a more fundamental level, I'm not sure I even believe that the concept of lifelong partners or lifelong marriage is natural for human beings. Being a part of a community, sure, but being emotionally attached to the same person in the same way forever? Not really. I think it's in our nature to constantly grow, and that typically means growing apart. In fact, that might be a lot healthier for people than the alternative.
Cute. I don’t believe any part of this, but it’s cute.
Cute. I don't believe any part of this, but it's cute.
Not sure why you were enabling HTTPS for a project that was not hosting an internet-accessible service, really. By which I assume you mean the service doesn't have a publicly accessible web based UI or API component. What were you trying to access and how? The only scenario I could think of for this would be that your custom software relies on HTTPS for secure communication within its own internal network (such as on a VPN) to send sensitive data back and forth between services. In which case that feels like overkill for a college course, since you shouldn't have any genuinely sensitive data that you need to secure if it's just for testing and demonstration.
I had a problem and then I tried to solve it by installing a snap package. Now I have two problems.
Given that Amazon, Microsoft, and Google together only account for 64% of global cloud hosting, I'm going to say those numbers don't add up. But you are right that Google is third behind the other two.