And replaced it with DuckDuckGo, which also had it missing.
These actions are usually meaningless, but that makes it extra meaningless.
These actions are usually meaningless, but that makes it extra meaningless.
Yes, using an EV in a location where the present primary source of generation* is coal has relatively minor impacts on the immediate carbon emissions profile of transportation.
But decoupling an activity from immediate reliance on a specific mode makes future progress more viable.
DuckDuckGo was also strongly criticised for the Tank Man image censorship, despite "merely" being a consumer of Bing's image search. DDG themselves have a reputation to be concerned with, and have been increasing their own public outreach and advertising over recent years, including radio spots (my principle commercial media exposure presently).
So, no, it's not a complete fix. Given the limited options and degree of search market monopoly, it does remain a signal. Though it's also a sharp reminder of the extreme limits of the "consumer choice" argument in a case in which that choice simply does not exist.
At any rate right now I see no obvious censorship: https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=tank+man&iax=images&ia=imag...
Then Microsoft manually took an action to restore the image results in Bing for the query "tank man." Which then filtered down to DDG since it relies on Bing (previously DDG's image results were similarly devoid of the proper results).
Oh, I don't know. If we can label "accidentally using the wrong scope" as a human error, I could easily see a situation where someone meant to remove something from Chinese search results but accidentally did it worldwide. I don't know what their infrastructure is like, what kind of safeguards they have in place, or even what they do to block a result from the all-seeing algorithm. Which is more likely: that Microsoft would allow China to dictate what the rest of the world can/cannot see or that someone made a mistake and blocked something globally instead of regionally?
However although you don’t intentionally make a mistake, you do intentionally carry it out.
In that case, no amount of safety checking will stop a human being from implementing bad logic.
Human error knows no bounds.
Did they? https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=tank+man has no results of Tank Man. https://imgur.com/a/U5fDs7P (If you do see Tank Man images, see the edit at the end of this comment.)
If you press enter on the search box with the pre-filled "tank man", then you get a URL with more query-string parameters - https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=tank+man&imgurl=&cbir=s... , and that page does contain the actual Tank Man.
Seems it can be narrowed down to the form= parameter. https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=tank+man&form=QBILPG has Tank Man, without the form= it doesn't. The actual value of the form= parameter doesn't value either, as long as it's not empty.
I have no idea what they're doing in the backend.
Edit: Another weird thing - https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=tank+man with JS enabled redirects to a different page with additional querystring parameters, and this page does have Tank Man. My testing above was done with JS disabled, which is why I got the pre-redirect page that doesn't have his pictures.
>I have no idea what they're doing in the backend.
The pagination theory doesn't make sense to me though. The relevant parameter is called "form", its actual value doesn't matter as long as it's non-empty, and surely a sane implementation would treat the lack of a page parameter as page 1 and not page whatever-the-stormtrooper-image-is-on.
"This is due to an accidental human error and we are actively working to resolve this.” In their own words. That's it!? They should be tripping over their feet in their haste to apologize! Executives should be coming out of the woodwork apologizing to everyone in sight and offering explanations to congress. But that's just my humble opinion.
Maybe DDG corrected it earlier? But DDG is as affected for many on here.