I don’t know whether you didn’t read the article or are just one of these simpletons incapable of holding an opinion more nuanced that “good or evil”, but they are suing the owners.

So in the old days, he would’ve had a paper map and would have driven off the bridge the same way.

Paper maps don’t talk to you and tell you which way to go, do they?

I seriously can’t decide whether you’re some Google shill or you’ve just given your brain the day off.

I’d love to hear how you think that would work.

Let’s get this straight.

Google publishes maps that are inaccurate. They were informed of the inaccuracies multiple times, yet did nothing. Subsequently, someone died following their incorrect maps that they couldn’t be bothered to fix — despite the fact that a fucked bridge is clearly potentially super dangerous.

And you think this has “literally nothing” to do with Google?

Are you a shareholder or something? That’s some hardcore corporate arse-kissing, imo.

Really. It’s a collapsed death bridge, FFS.

These “vandals” should have needed industrial machinery to remove the barriers that should have been there.

That depends very heavily on what your searching for.

If you’re a programmer or similar, like the poster you’re replying to appears to be, then you absolutely will find DDG crap compared to Google.

I use DDG as my primary search engine, but if I have a tech question, I usually skip it and go straight to Google.

Thing is, Google is also (still) just better.

I use DDG as my primary search engine, but I find myself repeating searches with Google so often, I wrote a userscript to add a “Search with Google” link to the top of the DDG search results.

Hard disagree. Back in its early days, Google was genuinely decent. They competed by building better stuff than everyone else, and that’s it.

There was no decent free email and no free maps before Google. You used to have to pay hundreds for decent mapping software.

The good old Web 2.0 days, when companies were falling over themselves to provide free APIs and see what people could do with them.

Google started going to shit when they brought out Android and everybody started trying to build walled gardens, and went full evil when that moral vacuum Pichai took over.

Yeah. It’s the mechanism that defines a vaccine, not when it’s administered.

It trains you own T-cells to recognise the cancer cells, so it’s a vaccine.

I haven’t touched the thing in three years.

I just remember that it had pace where it should have average speed. That is all.

Now go away. I’m not interested in defending myself to someone like you, who’s been nothing but nasty.

That’s not the Vivoactive cycling app.

Nah you’re right and this person has obviously never used a Garmin.

You mean that you didn’t bother to read my comment properly before personally attacking me. Let me guess, you’re from Reddit.

I only cycle, so I couldn’t comment on the other apps.

They were Vivoactives. They had pace, not average speed.

Regardless of what the focus of the watch is, the cycling app should show cycling stats.

It’s incredibly low effort to get something so basic wrong.

I said average speed. Learn to read.

Apple Watch.

I had a couple of Garmins before and the difference is night and day. The Apple Watch isn’t perfect, but it’s clear that a lot of thought went into it.

The Garmins on the other hand, were lowest of low effort.

They blatantly didn’t talk to even a single cyclists while building their cycling app.

Cyclists use average speed, not pace. Even the junkiest $3 cycle computer from Ali Baba gets this right, but not Garmin. They just copy-pasted the running screen.