While basic understanding and comprehension can be quite varied, our knowledge which determines our intelligence is based entirely on learning 'things'. The average person who thinks they "forget everything" about an introductory class is kidding themselves. I only took an introduction to Chemistry and I couldn't tell you off the top of my head half of the conversions I learned, but that doesn't make the information any less available. I remember information about relating different types of matter, universal constants in reactions. Definitions of basic words like exothermic, endothermic, etc. and most importantly I learned. Sure the material may not have been my particular forte, but making yourself work at something shows what you can accomplish and allows you to think differently whether you realise it or not. If more Language (by this I mean native language spoken) classes were enforced as well perhaps we wouldn't live in such an illiterate, made-up acronym world.

It's hard to say what 'popularity' really means. Not everyone with Internet access falls within the /normal/ range. Bots and search flooding also need to be taken into consideration. If someone knew the exact weighting Google used they could create fake posts/websites in prime locations in order to change what appears to be a common search term. I would hope that News articles and other (some-what credible) sources are weighted higher, but I do not have any evidence to support that. The exact wording plays a part as well. Your country of origin, if you are logged into your account, previous searches and information available on your habits will also play a role in what suggestions are made, because I see completely different results for "Is it wrong".

Somewhat true, Google has bowed to lawsuits and pressure in the past on their search suggestions, but they only list 4 options, which are supposed to be the most highly requested/available (both historical and taking current trends into consideration). In an attempt to make searching more 'convenient'. In another week or so due to the ads I would expect those sorts of terms to break the top 4.

Google suggest is an interpretive algorithm using common searches, and mass information to 'guess' what you or many other people might be wanting to search for. If the information is out there or people commonly search a topic it SHOULD appear as a possible option. The words probably should be censored for the vast audience possible, but it's the source information that is at fault, not Google for collecting it.

If you want something to complain about you'll find it. Maybe it's not the left-handed thing getting in the way, but rather your assumption that the world is out to get you for it. Buttons are generally on both sides of devices or centred which makes them equally easy or difficult for left/right handed people. As for marker smudges, you can't blame technology for that one, that's the fault of writing in a left-to-right language. Top to bottom and right to left languages would not cause any issue for lefties.

Moving mobile and desktop devices closer together is a wonderful plan, but the mobiles should be coming towards larger computers, not the other way around. Microsoft can keep Windows 8.

A photo or description would help in knowledge recall, this is a known fact. Saying that it "skews" the answers is impossible to say without knowing what the correct outcome was. If 'true' is the correct response, then having an external information source to help with determining your answer would indeed increase the number of people who get it correct (assuming they had the knowledge in the first place). Furthermore, if a photo of the person in question doesn't "provide any information about the topic at hand", what the heck does? A question about someone and a photo of them seem pretty related to me. *That aside, the general public doesn't usually have pictures of people after they're dead, so this is a terrible example to begin with.

Firstly, it's probably true, but it is not supported by the article in the least. Only being able to verify 20% of the clicks does not mean that the other 80% were bots. A lack of information does not support an implication of fraud. Using Javascript as a basis of for fraudulent clicks has been displayed here many times over not be enough. In fact, where is this determination of Javascript enabled being done? If it was done on their website (not their Facebook site) I would have had Javascript enabled on Facebook, but once visiting the site for the first time (as if by magic - or an installed extension facsimile) Javascript would have been disabled, throwing that statistic out the window. The focus should have been on the ad revenue demands and related blackmail-like actions of Facebook until more facts on fraud could be found.