Again, what's your point? That it's bad that Google tries to make a business out of organizing the world's information? It's the only way to keep doing it. You say:
> One thing that drives me mad about Google is how they say "the world's information", then ignore 99.9% of the worlds information
One wonders what's that 99.9% that you miss. You mention:
> I don't see things like "species extinction", "oceanic water temperature history", or say "dolphin linguistic data", equally represented
What equal representation do you want? A notification when you arrive at home telling you "this is some new discovery on dolphin linguistics"? For what it's worth, even that I'd bet you can get, by letting Google Now know of your interest in the topic, or subscribing to a science news channel in YouTube.
> How many people chew pieces of gum until 100% of the flavor is gone? I'll never know, and Google isn't going to help me, because it isn't a profitable data set.
Is it even known? Google's certainly not going to do the research; research isn't organizing. Would such an investigation even get funding from anyone, to pay the researcher? But supposing it's done, and it's published in some paper or some book, what's your best chance at finding it? Google Search, Scholar, or Books.
> I was (clearly) comparing the relative resources Google invests in some data sets vs others. Are you arguing that Google invests comparable resources in this type of data compared to the resources it invests in understanding Google's users' data sets?
> Before Google Assistant there indeed were those other products, which, I honestly don't get why you chose these ones, they aren't exactly great counter arguments.
Because before Google was investing a dollar in any of:
> "my browsing history", "my location history", "my search history", "an archive of my voice searches", "when I leave or return home via Nest", "who I associate with via Google's communication suite"
it was already investing plenty of resources in those products I mentioned.
> One thing that drives me mad about Google is how they say "the world's information", then ignore 99.9% of the worlds information
One wonders what's that 99.9% that you miss. You mention:
> I don't see things like "species extinction", "oceanic water temperature history", or say "dolphin linguistic data", equally represented
What equal representation do you want? A notification when you arrive at home telling you "this is some new discovery on dolphin linguistics"? For what it's worth, even that I'd bet you can get, by letting Google Now know of your interest in the topic, or subscribing to a science news channel in YouTube.
> How many people chew pieces of gum until 100% of the flavor is gone? I'll never know, and Google isn't going to help me, because it isn't a profitable data set.
Is it even known? Google's certainly not going to do the research; research isn't organizing. Would such an investigation even get funding from anyone, to pay the researcher? But supposing it's done, and it's published in some paper or some book, what's your best chance at finding it? Google Search, Scholar, or Books.
> I was (clearly) comparing the relative resources Google invests in some data sets vs others. Are you arguing that Google invests comparable resources in this type of data compared to the resources it invests in understanding Google's users' data sets?
> Before Google Assistant there indeed were those other products, which, I honestly don't get why you chose these ones, they aren't exactly great counter arguments.
Because before Google was investing a dollar in any of:
> "my browsing history", "my location history", "my search history", "an archive of my voice searches", "when I leave or return home via Nest", "who I associate with via Google's communication suite"
it was already investing plenty of resources in those products I mentioned.