> If I search for ruby gems, I probably want code. If someone else does, they may want actual gems.

So they search for "ruby gems" and you search for "ruby gems code." This nails in OP's point:

> Insight: Google does not want you to know or remember. Anything, if at all possible.

But if they search "ruby gems" their results for gemstones will include programming results. So instead they need to search for "ruby gems gemstone", but then some clever person names their ruby library gemstone and they need to add more qualifiers and so on.

No, I search for "ruby gems".

What about that means I don't "know or remember anything"?

The second line of your post is answered by the first.

I'm really not following. What is it that Google wants me to not know or remember?

This makes so much more sense. People are so lazy to type in their location that Google had to spend millions/billions of dollars on technology to stalk you and figure it out for you? I don't buy it.

You have a very narrow definition of "browser." Try xombrero, vimb, Luakit, uzbl or good old w3m.

> The same site says virtually nobody, aprox 2-3% is using edge.

What? Do you know how many people that is?

Its a lot of people but how many of them are your customers? How much additional developer time are you going to spend to support them. Are you building a less interesting experience for 98% of your customers in order to support the 2%?

For one party maybe the actual user percentage is 0.2% maybe for another its 20%.

The trade offs are going to differ.

Except anarchism, of course.

Google can break the Web because they own the Web. It's their platform. Maybe handing it to them wasn't such a good idea.

Are you white?

Anyone who agrees with this hasn't lived in Canada.