Sunday, April 12, 2026

Biased Blow-By-Blow - 2026 Paris-Roubaix

Introduction

This race needs no introduction. But this blog post does, if you’re new to my blow-by-blow reporting, which is biased because I’m a blogger, not a killjoy journalist. My first bias: Tadej Pogacar (UAE Team Emirates XRG) wins too much and needs to not take victory here today. If he did, he would have won all the Monuments in a single season, which would make the sport look like a joke.


Biased Blow-By-Blow — Paris-Roubaix 2026

As I join the action, the riders have 65 kilometers and 13 cobblestoned sections to go. Phil Liggett is announcing and has offered up a brilliant insight: “Every rider has ridden to the level of their capacity because they all want to beat Tadej Pogacar.” Odd verb tense … meaning they have ridden that way so far, but no longer are? Have they given up? Should Phil?

Okay, before we get too far into the footage, here’s a little pop quiz for you: what do Pogacar, pre-race favorite Mathieu Van der Poel (Alpecin-Premier Tech), and the Russian-American writer Gary Shteyngart all have in common? I put this to my online correspondent, who is both a cycling and a Shteyngart fan, but he failed the quiz. The answer? They all rock expensive watches.


That’s a classic Shteyngart Instagram setup there: food, drink, fancy watch all prominently featured. Of course, Shteyngart isn’t as much of a baller as the racers. His most expensive watch, a Patek Philippe, is worth only about $100K. The Richard Mille on Van der Poel’s wrist above goes for over $400K, and Pogacar’s is surely right around that much. (Not that these riders have to pay for them. In fact, it’s probably an elaborate insurance scam.)

Okay, enough of that—back to the race. There is a group of nine off the front, which features Pogacar. They have just over thirty seconds on a small chase group that includes Van der Poel, who is doing most of the work.


Pilippo Ganna (Ineos Grenadiers) decides to be the exception that proves the rule.


No, your vision is not failing. These are really bad pictures. Peacock blocks screen grabs. I’m holding my phone camera as still as possible but I’ve had a lot of coffee.

Up ahead, Wout Van Aert (Team Visma-Lease a Bike) attacks!


Who is this jackass in the black shirt waving at the camera? How is the camera more interesting to him than the actual race? What’s he gonna say later? “Yeah, I was at the race, but somehow my back was turned when the racers went by. But hey, I was on TV!”

Only Pogacar is able to bridge up to Van Aert! The breakaway is suddenly in shambles!


“Everybody is giving a hundred and ten cents,” Phil says cryptically. After a pause to collect himself, he says, uncertainly, “Uh, percent.”

Van Aert continues to drill it! Pogacar is just holding his wheel!


Daaaaaamn, Van Aert is going so hard he’s gapped Pogacar!


Behind, the original breakaway has come back together, and I think they’ve merged with the VdP group, but the gap is 23 seconds. Ganna drops back to air out his armpits, one at a time.


No, actually, it appears he’s signaling a wheel change. He has a flat tire, bummer! With these modern through-axles a wheel change could take like 30 seconds, so he better hope they have a bike for him. Fun fact: it used to be that to signal a front flat, you would raise your left arm; for a rear flat, your right. That way the mechanic knew which wheel to bring. I guess these days it’s always a whole bike they bring, since Ganna has a rear flat but is holding up his left arm.

The gap is still hovering at around 25 seconds to the VdP group, despite all the crazy action at the front. I wish I knew how VdP missed the original break of nine. I gambled today that I could get up at a reasonable hour (quarter to six) and still catch the main action of the race. I lost.

Now Pogacar pulls through. I wonder why he’s not leaning farther forward, to be more aero, considering he’s in what could be the winning move in the biggest one-day race on the calendar. Maybe he’s just being nice, giving Van Aert the best draft possible?


It looks like Mads Pedersen [Lidl-Trek] is the only rider still ahead who was in that break. So here’s a question for you: if the peloton determined that this guy doped more than average, would they nickname him Meds Pedersen? Or would that endanger the omertà?

Laurence Pithie (Red Bull – BORA – Hansgrohe) crashes!


What a pithie. Er, pity. There’s never a good time to crash but I feel like the fate of the race is unfolding at this very moment.

“Pedersen is a wise old man,” Phil projects optimistically and pointlessly.

Gosh, the gap is up to 41 seconds. The chase group is fracturing a bit. It looks like Pithie never made it back on.

VdP has dirt on his chin. How? Or is that Oreo residue?


Amazingly, the gap is coming down. It’s 35 seconds. It’s so refreshing to see anybody closing in on Pogacar. I guess I should acknowledge that it’s not just Pogacar, it’s Pogacar and Van Aert. Technically this is a two-man breakaway, which is normally far more dangerous than a guy going solo, but honestly, let’s admit this is Pogacar doing his normal solo breakaway and Van Aert happens to be with him, like a fly that finds its way into your car and travels with you all the way to Pittsburgh. It’s not even remarkable that Van Aert isn’t doing his share of the work. Pogacar would never expect him to. Within the peloton, Pogacar has the same role I have around my house when it comes to jars. If there’s an unopened jar with too tight a lid, my wife simply hands it to me and I open it. I never say anything like, “Have you tried everything? Did you run hot water over it? Did you whack it with a knife, or use that floppy nubby rubber disc thingy we can never find? Why should I have to open this? How are you ever going to get better at this without trying? What if I went on a business trip and wasn’t here to do it?” That would be silly. Of course I just open the jar, because (having the hand strength of a former bike mechanic) I’m the logical person to do it, just like Pogacar is the obvious person to lead a breakaway the entire time. He’s just better at it. He’d never say to Van Aert (or anyone else), “Why don’t you help pull?” That would be silly. The obvious answer, “Because I’m not you,” doesn’t need to be said. It’s like for Pogacar to ever draft anybody would be an unfair advantage.

Take last weekend’s Tour of Flanders, for example. Pogacar and VdP were in a breakaway together, and VdP pulled only occasionally. During the post-race interview, VdP was asked if he’d been toying with Pogacar by not doing his fair share of the work. VdP looked perplexed and said, “I did my pulls. Not very many, but it wasn’t necessary. Tadej was just glad to get a little rest here and there.” (I admit I normally make shit up when transcribing rider interviews, but that bit I rendered as faithfully as memory allows.)

Whoa, VdP overcooks a curve and goes into the grass! What happened there?


It wasn’t a tight curve … maybe he just zoned out? (Yeah, of course I’m just playin’ with you. VdP’s focus is of course extreme.)

They’re recapping what’s happened so far. Pogacar has had two bike changes, and VdP at least one, and it was a disaster because he got a bike from a teammate but his cleats weren’t compatible with the pedals on it. That would never happen in amateur cycling because club racer types like me have encyclopedic knowledge of everybody’s equipment selections. (I once had some great mischievous fun debating Speedplay vs. Look with a pal over email. I actually don’t have any strong feelings about pedals whatsoever, I was just baiting the guy, and it was great, he got really worked up.)

The gap is back up to 43 seconds and man, it’s looking like a two-man race. On this fairly flat course, I can’t imagine Pogacar riding a baller like Van Aert off his wheel, but he also shouldn’t be able to beat him in a sprint. I wonder if Pogacar remembers how to attack in a one-day race. Typically he doesn’t need to, he just goes so hard everyone gets sawed off, one by one, even VdP last week. That’s not going to work today, not without a hard climb to play with.

Ah, I have a text from my online correspondent! Probably some scintillating insight on this race! The text reads, “So how did they start calling it Botswain? Ball sweat is a better name.” So he’s continuing our conversation from last night, when I Beck’sted him a photo of my Trader Joe’s house brand IPA.


So much for illuminating commentary … my correspondent joined the action even later than I did.

Van Aert goes to the front and immediately the gap starts shrinking. This is what happens when somebody besides Pogacar pulls. It’s crazy that Pogacar’s dominance is so extreme, and what that’s doing to the sport. No longer is it man vs. man; it’s really peloton vs. Pogacar.


As if to prove my point about Van Aert’s insufficient speed, Pogacar impatiently takes the lead again and the gap goes back out to 43 seconds.

Back in the chase group, VdP is getting some cooperation from the others but it just doesn’t seem like it’s going to help. They won’t be going fast enough on the front, since he’s as physically superior to them as Pogacar is to Van Aert, and yet he can’t do the whole chase alone.

Even though I pay actual money for Peacock Premium or whatever it’s called, I still have to sit through commercials. They’re showing an ad for Disneyland. Which is really absurd.  I mean, who would get up this early on a Sunday morning to watch Paris-Roubaix other than a middle-aged man? And what middle-aged man would want to go to Disneyland, ever? The Walt Disney Company should only advertise during children’s programming, to get the children begging their parents to go. Fun fact: my wife and I never took our kids to Disneyland. We flat refused. And yet as far as I know, these kids aren’t even in therapy.


The man in the photo above is not a father, I hasten to point out. He’s a grandfather, more than happy to take his granddaughter to Disneyland. He’s about to ask her, “Will this be your first time trying LSD?”

Amazingly, the gap is now coming down! VdP is riding like a beast because with only 18 kilometers to go, he must know time is running out. “This is the cord in the elastic,” Phil says. I’ve never heard this metaphor extended in that way, and I’m not sure I understand it. I mean, some garments (e.g., pajama bottoms, Sansabelt trousers like Phil wears) have an elastic waistband, and others have a drawstring (aka cord), but does any garment feature both? I think not.

The gap is down to 28 seconds! Pogacar looks back at Van Aert as if to say, “Can you help me with this jar?” Van Aert doesn’t need to say anything. His face says it all.


The gap is down to 18 seconds and now Pogacar drills it a lot harder on the front. He was probably loafing until now. The gap quickly goes back out to 23 seconds.

I’ve been wondering how VdP missed that nine-man breakaway and my online correspondent texts, “Reading thru the cyclingnews feed, it looks like VdP needed a bike change which put him 1:30 down and then he flatted a bit later and was as much as 2:00 down until he got going again.” Man, terrible luck.

With only 12 kilometers left, the gap is up to 28 seconds. Almost all the footage now is of the leading duo because everything behind them has become irrelevant.


Van Aert is pulling surprisingly often. Perhaps he’s figuring if it somehow ends up in a sprint and he wins, he doesn’t want anyone accusing him of being a wheel-sucker. Or who knows, maybe he’s actually got better legs!

They’re heading to the penultimate cobbled sector, and if memory serves, the last sector is a joke. So this may be where the final move is made. It’s a three-star section, with one Yelp reviewer complaining, “Good latté but the guy said the coffee cake was baked that day but it was totally stale.”

Van Aert must be feeling pretty good to still be taking pulls when it’s clearly unnecessary. In the chase group VdP isn’t even leading that much. He’s racing for third at this point.


Van Aert takes a long pull, oddly long, without Pogacar coming through, like he’s starting to play games. Van Aert flicks his elbow. Pogacar finally pulls through.

It happens again: Pogacar leaves Van Aert on the front instead of pulling through. Again Van Aert flicks his elbow. This is how I feel when my wife asks me to take over at the stove halfway through her dinner prep. I’m like, how do I know when the corn-on-the-cob is done? I can’t cook, I’m just the jar guy!

Tim Van Dijke (Red Bull – BORA – Hansgrohe) attacks the chase group! VdP chases him down.

The cobbles are basically done, and Pogacar hasn’t shed Van Aert. With 2.4 kilometers left, we might have a race here! I text my correspondent, “Needless to say, I would LOVE to see this come down to a sprint with Van Aert winning.” He replies, “Me too!”

Now, in the chase group, Jasper Stuyven (Soudal Quick Step) attacks! He immediately gets a huge gap!


Not much response from this so-called chase group. I suspect for its members it’s more like the “can this just be over already?” group.

And now the leaders are on the velodrome! Pogacar leads, perhaps unwisely.


Pogacar looks back as if to say, “Care to lead this out, Wout?”

They come past the finish line and the bell is ringing! One lap to go!

And now, just before the final curve, Van Aert makes his move!


He immediately pulls ahead, he’s freakin’ flying!


The gap widens!


They round the bend for the final stretch and Pogacar is still giving it everything, still in the hunt, now in the draft!


Van Aert is closing in on the line and it looks like he’s got it! He looks over his shoulder to make sure.


And he’s got the win! Unbelievable! Van Aert finally conquers Paris-Roubaix!


Jasper Stuyven (Soudal Quick-Step) rolls in for third … evidently the chasers never did catch him.


It’s a tough sprint for fourth! VdP is up against Christophe Laporte (Team Visma – Lease A Bike)!


With a bike throw, VdP takes the sprint!


Missing the podium probably doesn’t bother VdP that much compared to not winning his fourth Paris-Roubaix. It’s a rounding error. Good on him that he wasn’t too proud to sprint for fourth.

Here is the top ten:


Van Aert is mobbed by cameramen. Are there camerawomen around him as well? Possibly. I guess that’s not really the point.


Van Aert covers his face, surely feeling overwhelmed.


VdP comes over to congratulate him. Note the Euro-mullet.


Now Van Aert spots a friend or staffer, runs to him, and jumps into his arms.


Wow, that took some confidence. Van Aert judged that this guy would be able to catch him and hold him up. Imagine if the guy’s footing wasn’t good and he was just bowled over backwards, and if he were badly injured in the process. That would be an unpleasant footnote to this brilliant victory.

Van Aert finds his family and kneels down to engage with his small kids. Look at the cameraman in green, there on the right. What’s he pointing his camera at? A bird?


Van Aert high-fives his kid, who probably cannot remotely grasp the significance of this victory.


I’ve long been a big fan of Van Aert, based in part on a previous post-race family interaction. It was just after stage 15 of the 2022 Tour de France, and (as I described it here):

Right after the finish, cameramen milled around looking for the requisite heartwarming footage of riders in tears, hugging their teammates, managers, significant others, etc. They certainly got the desired response with Philipsen, but van Aert didn’t have much reaction at all. Instead, he tended to his little daughter, trying to wash her hands off with a water bottle. Sure, a minute earlier he’d been almost crashing into another rider at 40 mph, but now his fatherly duties took precedence over having some big melodramatic “moment” after all the action. Despite being one of the most prominent riders in the biggest bike race in the world, he evidently hasn’t forgotten that he’s just a guy. A dad

You can watch footage of that lovely family moment here.

Here’s Pogacar. He looks pensive, perhaps wondering, “How did I let that come down to a sprint? What was I thinking?”


Now Van Aert is being interviewed.

INTERVIEWER: So much emotion. What  does this mean for you?

WOUT: It means everything to me. I first did this race eight years ago, and ever since it’s been my goal. I was 18 and that year I lost a teammate, Michael Goolaerts [during the race, due to a cardiac arrest]. Ever since then it’s been my goal to come here and point my finger to the sky. This victory is for Michael, but especially for his family, for his wife Marianne, for Christophe, and all my friends and teammates from my previous team. It was a really tough day, and ever since that day, so many times I was so unlucky in this race, but it brought me also experience, so even today when luck was not on my side, I kept believing in it, and finally the reward is there.

INTERVIEWER: Everybody was talking about Tadej, about Van der Poel, but you, you never stopped believing.

W: I did stop believing, a lot of times, but the next day I always woke up and fought for it again, and honestly there’s no more beautiful way than going to the line with the world champion, and he gave me such a hard time, beating him in the sprint mano a mano is something really special for me.

INTERVIEWER: Take me through the final, what was going through your mind?

WOUT: When I saw the velodrome I was just sticking to my plan. In my dreams and in my preparation I pictured this sprint so many times, so I knew exactly what to do. The hardest part was getting to the velodrome I would say, there’d been so many attacks on the day, I was at the limit to stay on his wheel, and  yeah, it was all worth it.

INTERVIEWER: There were a lot of tough moments for you [this season], a lot of injuries, a lot of crashes, so to win here, this is a tidal win.

WOUT: Yeah, exactly, it’s such a chaotic race, everybody coming to the line has his own story and that’s what makes it so beautiful. It can be hard but on a day like this it’s the best race there is.


If you’ve read my race reports before, you might be scratching your head right now and thinking, “Weird, that interview transcript actually sounds plausible!” It is the case that normally I stray pretty far from verbatim on these, putting all kinds of words in people’s mouths to make the interview interesting. But this was such a huge win for Van Aert, and his actual words so heartfelt and meaningful, I think clowning around would have been inappropriate.

I just updated my wife on the race, telling her that the guy I’d hoped would win, but who I didn’t think had much of a chance, did win. “Who was that?” she asked, automatically, almost accidentally, in accordance with a habit she formed as a journalist twenty years ago. I told her, excitedly, “Wout van Aert!” She replied, “You say that like I would know who you’re even talking about, like I’ve ever heard of Woof Van Aert!” Woof. I love it. A new nickname is born!

And now (over two hours later, following the finish of the women’s race) the winners mount the podium. Pogacar gets his rock trophy for second place and looks thoughtful. Already thinking about next year, perhaps?


Van Aert hoists his trophy and is stoked! Look at the cheeky French dignitary photo-bombing the podium, eclipsing Stuyven.


The riders take their hats off for the Belgian national anthem. What is up with Pogacar’s goofy two-tone hair? It’s even worse on proper video vs. the crappy photo I was able to get.


And now Van Aert congratulates Franziska Koch (FDJ United - Suez), winner of today’s Paris-Roubaix Femmes, which finished just before the podium ceremony.


In case you’re wondering, Koch was in a three-up breakaway with two Visma - Lease A Bike riders, Marianne Vos and last year’s winner, Pauline Ferrand-Prévot, and managed to beat them in the sprint. But that’s a whole other story, a whole other race I wasn’t able to cover today.

Before I wrap up, I want to say one more thing: obviously I wasn’t rooting for Pogacar today, but I don’t hold anything against him other than being too dominant. And while it seems unrealistic for a stage racer to contest these spring classics, I have to honor Pogacar for trying. It’s a big risk to ride a dangerous course like Paris-Roubaix, and I like to see him putting panache before prudence.

But to summarize today’s race: GO WOOF!

—~—~—~—~—~—~—~—~—
Email me here. For a complete index of albertnet posts, click here.

Monday, April 6, 2026

Autocomplete Zeitgeist Revisited - 2026 - Part II

Introduction

Last week, in keeping with  my eight-year tradition, I examined Google’s Autocomplete suggestions—i.e., you start a query and have it suggest the rest—to learn about the American Zeitgeist in 2026. Part I focused on crime and punishment (i.e., what Americans fear getting in trouble for) and today I’ll cover everything else.


Who, what, where, when, why, how

Searching on “what is,” here are the top five suggestions Google offered for completing the query:

  • What is my ip
  • What is the 25th amendment
  • What is easter monday
  • What is vibe coding
  • What is easter about

That first one, “what is my ip,” appeared eight years ago but not four years ago. It’s a pointless inquiry, as your IP address doesn’t actually say much about you or your device configuration ; these addresses are assigned dynamically and temporarily. Gamers and users of VPNs have reasons to want to know this, but they’ve surely bookmarked a website that can actually provide this info. So the popularity of this query is probably based on fear and ignorance: people watched some TikTok video about how “they” are going to “scam you through your IP address,” or they got a scam email saying, “we know your IP address is 192.168.128.230,” and these poor souls are just trying to determine if they’re really in danger. Could Americans really be that fearful and ignorant? Decide for yourself. Perhaps the rest of this post will help.

The second Autocomplete suggestion is surely the result of Americans reading about this or that lawmaker saying it’s time to invoke Section 4 of the 25th amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which allows removal of the president if he’s deemed “unable to discharge his duties.”  The trigger for this saber-rattling was a post from the Donald on Truth Media on Easter Sunday, alluding to the military offensive against Iran: “Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!! Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell - JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah.” Yes, he really said this. The president.

So … does this Autocomplete suggestion support the notion that Americans are fearful and ignorant? Well, I wouldn’t blame anybody for being fearful (either that Trump will be removed or that he’s unhinged, depending on your political bent), and I do not considerate it ignorant to not know what the 25th amendment is. I’d never heard of it either until sometime in the past six months when some other Trump outburst led to the same Quixotic call for removing him.

Moving on to the Easter thing, perhaps Americans are thinking more globally in general, because this didn’t come up four or eight years ago. Obviously Easter Monday is simply the day after Easter (today, in fact) and Americans are probably feeling a bit chapped we don’t get it as a holiday like so much of Europe does. Fair enough.

On to vibe coding: needless to say this query didn’t exist four years ago. Vibe coding is the method of programming where you tell AI what you want, essentially, without caring about how the resulting code works (which makes many in the industry nervous). A coder friend of mine likened it to pulling the handle on a slot machine. I think a lot more Americans are aware of vibe coding than would actually engage in it. I doubt it’d be as popular if it weren’t such an inspired, buzz-y term; if we called it “natural language-directed code generation with deferred comprehension” I doubt anybody would care. But since “vibe coding” sounds so cool, it’s making the rounds, and people don’t want to feel out of touch when it comes up. So it’s not fear or ignorance per se; it’s fear of ignorance.

The popularity of “What is Easter about” suggests to me that a growing number of Americans never went to church, or more specifically to a Christian one. It’s tempting to flag this as ignorance, but then who establishes how knowledgeable an American (especially an immigrant) should be about this (or any) religion?

Okay, let’s move on to “why.” The top five Autocomplete suggestions are:

  • Why is the market down today
  • Why berkeley
  • Why california
  • Why is easter called easter
  • Why was jesus crucified

Those last two I’ll just lump under the same category as “What is Easter about,” but the other three didn’t show up in either of my last two investigations so let’s have a look. “Why is the market down today” would seem to be a perennial question, other than right now. I mean, why do you think, ya bozos? Could it be related to the world experiencing the largest oil crisis in history? If Americans can’t equate the price of gas to the stock market, I’m sorry—that’s just ignorant. But getting back to fearful, perhaps in this realm they’re not fearful enough.

The “why Berkeley” and “why California” suggestions are a real mystery to me, since the correct answer to both is “duh!” The Google Gemini AI overview responses are, respectively, “UC Berkeley is consistently ranked as the world’s top public research university, offering an elite, rigorous education, top-tier faculty, and massive research opportunities,” and “California is a global hub for innovation, entertainment, and economic power, boasting the largest state economy in the U.S. (4th largest globally).” (As for why these questions seem to have gotten so much search traction, I really have no idea, though my IP address—yes, we’ve come full circle on that—does tell Google my approximate whereabouts, and in fact I live in Albany which is right next door to Berkeley.)

Now we’ll look at “who.” Four years ago people were googling Julia Fox (whoever that is or was); Will Smith’s wife; Moon Knight;  the Super Bowl teams; and Joe Rogan. Here are the top five today:

  • Who won march madness
  • Who is nancy guthrie
  • Who is this
  • Who is steve hilton
  • Who is this meme

March Madness is obviously some sports tournament that ended less than a week ago so who cares—it probably says nothing about the zeitgeist. Nancy Guthrie is a missing person, the mother of some news personality, who is in the current news because there’s a ransom note now, and a sheriff with an undeclared loaded gun, and surely other bits of lurid intrigue, none of which I care about, because this person is a complete stranger. As she surely is to all these people googling her just because it’s exciting. Seriously, people, go read a crime novel. On to Steve Hilton: he is running for public office and that’s timely, blah blah blah.

Now, “who is this” is a fascinating suggestion. At first I took it to be a sign that somebody forgot he was only using a search engine, and assumed he was in conversation with an AI chatbot, and forgot which one it was. (I myself jump from bot to bot whenever they freeze my session due to lack of paid subscription.) But I went ahead and searched on it, and Google says it’s either the name of a song (it names four candidates) or “a phrase used to ask for the identity of a person, often used over the phone.” On this basis, I’m either going to finally become a rapper and write a song called “What Is My IP,” or I’m going to start asking people, especially over the phone, “Who is this?” Since random telemarketers are bound to volunteer this information anyway, I’ll stick to using it with people I know, whose voice I recognize, and who are in my contacts. Should shake things up a bit.

But “who is this meme” is a real mystery. Perhaps it’s just that “meme” is such a common noun, and the phrase “who is this” is just yearning for a predicate, so Google took a wild guess. Who knows? Who is this knows?

Let’s move on to “where.” The first carryover from previous years is, predictably enough, “where’s my refund”  which suggests I shouldn’t do this report so close to Tax Day. That query came in at #2. The most popular is “where is artemis 2 now,” pertaining to the spacecraft that is heading for the moon (and once again, the popularity of this query says basically nothing about the zeitgeist). Next was “where is the super bowl 2026” which came up last time as well, and I just absolutely cannot fathom the popularity of this query because the Super Bowl happened already, all the way back in February, and if even I know that, despite being totally uninterested, how can so many people not? Next was “where to watch heated rivalry,” another broadcast sporting event; that this suggestion came under “where” is a random artifact of video websites being thought of as places. Ditto “where to watch uconn vs Michigan.” So much for where.

The next query ought to be more interesting: how. What are Americans trying to learn? The only carryover from previous surveys was “how to screenshot on mac,” which at first blush begs the question: haven’t people figured this out by now? But actually this makes sense: it’s because Gen-Z, having been weaned on smartphones, not laptops, is exploring this for the first time, and/or the Mac users have forgotten since they’re mostly phone-addicted as well, and/or entering their demented years. “How to screenshot on windows” was right behind this, in #2. Next was “how to file a tax extension,” making its first appearance though procrastination is obviously as old as time. Fourth place went to “how many ounces in a gallon,” which shows that Americans are apparently no better at math than they were four years ago, but at least they’re thinking bigger, because last time we saw “how many ounces in a cup.” Fifth place went to “how far is the moon from earth,” which again is merely timely, not illuminating.

The future

This brings us to the most exciting part of the post, where we stop living in the past and ask Google about what’s on the horizon. I started with “am I going…” Compared to last time, I see a whole lot of repeated queries:  am I going crazy, am I going to be okay, am I going to hell, am I going blind? There’s kind of a sadness, I think, about people googling these important and existential questions when they have to know Google won’t have the answers, at least not anything they can trust. I wonder if these people are like the speaker in Poe’s “The Raven,” who keeps asking this bird questions—“Is there balm in Gilead?” and (in essence) “will I get over my lost Lenore?”—because he knows the raven won’t answer, other than “Nevermore,” and he wants to torment himself, like some ritual act of self-flagellation. These first perennial Autocomplete queries were so sad, I was almost cheered up by the fifth one, the relatively harmless “am I going to owe taxes in 2025.” (Uh, ask your tax software, dude! Problem solved…)

And now we are on to our final Autocomplete query, “will I ever.” These are very similar to four and eight years ago, with repeat appearances of “will I ever find love,” “will I ever be able to afford a house,” “will I ever be happy,” and “will I ever find love again.” What’s instructive are the suggestions we no longer see: “will I ever get a ps5” and “will I ever get a job.” I guess four years ago it was hard to get a PS5 (don’t worry, Gemini says supply has largely caught up with demand!), but at least people had jobs. I feel bad that people are putting this lugubrious “will I ever get a job?” query to Google, knowing it’s probably as hopeless as asking “am I going to hell?” or “is there balm in Gilead?” All I can advise is a) try touching up your LinkedIn profile, and b) it’s not you … it’s them.

And now, following the tradition I established four and eight years ago, I’ll abandon Google and its Autocomplete and turn to the Magic 8-Ball at www.ask8ball.net. I asked it, “Will I ever be good enough?” It promptly replied, “Without a doubt.” Maybe too promptly … I mean, not even AI seems that fast! So just to make sure that this utterance wasn’t its only stock and store, I asked it, “Is there balm in Gilead?” It answered, “Reply hazy, try again.” I guess I’ll have to google it.

Previous Autocomplete Zeitgeist posts

—~—~—~—~—~—~—~—~—
Email me here. For a complete index of albertnet posts, click here.

Tuesday, March 31, 2026

Autocomplete Zeitgeist Revisited - 2026

Before we begin

In this post, which examines the American zeitgeist, I adopt a tone of playful criticism. Please don’t mistake me for one of those tedious killjoys who only finds fault. Believe me, I am grateful for my country and its people.

Introduction

As everybody knows, Google Autocomplete is a function of Google Search that starts providing feedback even before you’ve finished typing your query. The search engine predicts what you’re looking for based on others’ recent searches across the Internet. I find Autocomplete a good indicator of where people’s heads are, so in a long-ago post I asked Google a range of questions designed to examine the national zeitgeist as of March 31, 2018. Then, exactly four years later, I googled the same questions to see how things had changed and what people sought answers for in 2022. And now, another four years later (to the day), I peer back into Autocomplete suggestions to see where our heads are at in 2026.


(Note: to improve the accuracy of this experiment—that is, to make it more about the American people instead of about me—I turned off “Personal Results,” so my own previous searches won’t influence the suggestions.)


Persecution mania

Four years ago, the query “is it illegal to…” prompted Autocomplete suggestions that included burning money, hitting a girl, and working weekends in France. Today, this same short phrase produces these suggested queries as the top five:

  • Is it illegal to write on US currency
  • Is it illegal to talk to dolphins
  • Is it illegal to drive barefoot
  • Is it illegal to collect rainwater in California
  • Is it illegal to drive without insurance

Driving barefoot has appeared in the top five for both my previous studies, suggesting that—even though Gen Z doesn’t seem very interested in driving—they’re still interested in this topic. Maybe they’re tired of their parents (or Uber drivers) going barefoot?

Now, this bit about writing on US currency I’ve never seen before, not even in the top ten—it’s completely new. So I asked myself, what’s changed that this is suddenly a #1 concern? The answer is simple: as described here, Donald Trump will soon be the first sitting president in history to have his signature adorn US currency, specifically the $1 bill. Now, I’m not here to take sides in matters of politics, but I think everyone can agree that this presents a tantalizing opportunity for the anti-Trump camp: they naturally want to write something like “sucks” right after his signature. Kind of a tit-for-tat: like, fine, you wanna write on my currency, I’m gonna write on it, too. But to consider actually indulging this temptation begs the question: will I get arrested for this?

If you think I’m being ridiculously paranoid, I’ll just say that a) it’s not necessarily the case that the typical American isn’t paranoid, and b) there is ample precedent to reasonably ask this question. The Donald saw to it that his face is prominently displayed right next to George Washington’s on US National Park season passes, and the backlash created a cottage industry of stickers designed specifically to obscure his picture.


The Department of the Interior reacted by prohibiting these stickers, claiming that they somehow bypass “security features,” and declared that affixing them can invalidate the $80 pass. As related here, this led to companies innovating again, this time with handy sleeves that cover up the picture until it’s time to present the pass to a park ranger. Given the history here, I can’t blame my fellow Americans for being careful.

Now let’s talk about the legality of talking to dolphins. As it turns out, the popularity of this search query is largely Google’s own fault because their AI summary indicates that it basically is illegal to talk to dolphins.


There’s not a direct link between this AI summary and the popularity of the Autocomplete text, but this kind of overstatement tends to get people up in arms, which is exactly what has happened. As described in a legal journal here, “A viral claim spread … suggesting that simply speaking to or near a dolphin is a federal crime.” So a paranoia has emerged about this activity, just like with defacing currency.

I’m going to skip over the rainwater thing for a moment and address “driving without insurance” next. (You’ll see why in a minute.) I am perplexed by these driving-related inquiries given how Gen Z isn’t much into cars. So I dug a little deeper into that, and surfaced this fascinating blog post challenging the popular theories about this generational change in driving behavior. The data do not show that this reluctance to learn to drive is due to the popularity of ride-sharing apps, or teens being too busy studying or doing extracurricular activities that improve their college applications, or because of our tough economic times, or because of increasing rates of depression. All of these explanations are refuted via data going back decades. The author argues, instead, that Gen-Z teens are just growing up more slowly—they’re “less likely to date, have a paid job, drink alcohol, and have sex than teens in previous generations” and that young adults “also take longer to get married, have children, and settle into careers.”

Worrying about having to get car insurance sounds like exactly the kind of grown-up task Gen-Z kids shrink from. I can just sense the eye-rolling and their thinking, “OMG, if I have to get actual insurance just to drive a car, forget about it!”

Could this delayed adulthood miraculously explain the rainwater gathering thing as well? Well, maybe. It could be Gen-Z, while afraid to drink tap water due to widespread mythology about it being unhealthy, also lacks both a car and the grown-up discipline of knocking out errands, and is thus too lazy to head to the grocery store for bottled. Or who knows, maybe young adults are so stunted they forget to pay their water bill. So they’re like, maybe we just put a bucket out back and drink from that … if we’re allowed.

Moving on to a slightly different search, “is it against the law to…” I get mostly the same results, but with these two additions appearing in the top five:

  • Is it against the law to burn an American flag
  • Is it against the law to not file taxes

Interestingly, flag burning was the very first Autocomplete suggestion eight years ago, but four years ago it didn’t appear at all. So why has this one returned? Well, it may well be a political matter, so let’s look at who was president when I did my two previous studies. My first Autocomplete post was halfway through Trump’s first term, which is when we first saw this burning question (pun intended, couldn’t resist); my second post was halfway through Biden’s term (when this suggestion disappeared); and now, halfway through Trump’s second term, it’s back. I’m not suggesting that Americans are more interested in burning flags during conservative reigns. It could be that the American flag simply figures more prominently in the national dialogue when we have a polarizing, populist president whose followers seem to believe they own this national icon.

In case you think that’s just a pet theory of mine, I did a little light research, and this article describes a 2025 poll of 2,404 U.S. adults on the topic of flags vs. party. (The sample was “weighted to be representative of adults nationwide according to gender, age, race, and education, based on the U.S. Census.”) The poll found, among other things, that forty-two percent of respondents assume a person flying the flag is conservative, whereas only ten percent assume a person displaying the flag is liberal.

I’m not suggesting that liberals want to burn our flag and are making sure this is allowed. I’m also not insinuating that conservatives, fearing that liberals are going to start burning flags, are seeing whether or not they can call the cops. Probably more to the point, when people are politically agitated in general, as they are now, the flag itself and notions of waving vs. desecrating it are more top-of-mind.

Moving on to our next query, “can you be arrested for…,” the top five include “a misdemeanor,” “speeding,” and “driving without a license,” all of which I saw last time. “Driving without insurance” shows up here, too. But I also see a newcomer to the suggestions, which is “can you be arrested for littering in Texas.”

I know my point with this post is to determine what can be inferred about the American zeitgeist from Autocomplete suggestions, but these highly local issues make it tricky. The question is, what happened recently in Texas that would drive this kind of query? I’m generally the wrong guy to ask because I keep my finger as far from the pulse of my fellow man as possible, eschewing all social media and most news sources. Whereas many people have FOMO (fear of missing out), I’m more plagued by “FONMO” (fear of not missing out)—that is, fear of being dragged into pointless gossipy discussions about this or that viral inflammation. But it’s really easy to research such stuff now, thanks (?) to AI chatbots. Claude drew my attention to this article about a cop beating up a woman for littering. Obviously this is a travesty, but worrying whether or not it’s illegal to litter seems to be missing the point. If this is how people fact-check before joining an online dialogue, I doubt they’re really in a position to fix the problem. It’s likely just more performative outrage.

Mercifully, since I have a lot to cover here, suggestions to complete the query “can you be arrested for…” haven’t changed since four years ago so I can skip them. No such luck with “can a police officer…” but that does turn up some very interesting results:

  • Can a police officer arrest an ice agent
  • Can a police officer search your car
  • Can a police officer serve a restraining order
  • Can a police officer arrest a federal agent
  • Can a police officer date a felon

The first one naturally reflects current events, which have little to do—I suspect—with the American zeitgeist and more to do with remarkable changes in federal law enforcement. I mean, if Mount St. Helens erupted again with widespread atmospheric effects, it would certainly influence search suggestions, even though nothing about Americans would have changed.

But it’s an interesting scenario. I suppose the gist of this inquiry is whether a cop could arrest an ICE agent just for doing his or her job (and I’m going to guess the answer is “no” but I’m not performing that query because I don’t actually care). But what if people are just wondering if ICE agents can do as they please? Hold up a liquor store and the cops turn a blind eye?

The second query is pretty dumb, obviously. If a cop can punch you in the face for dropping litter from your car, he can certainly search it. So make sure you never have a taillight out, if you don’t want a cop finding that exploded can of Spam in the storage area where the spare tire used to be. (True story! My wife had stashed foodstuffs in case of, like, a zombie apocalypse. Turns out tinned meat can expire, big time.)

I have to confess, the popularity of the restraining order inquiry threw me. (Fortunately, my experience around this is nil.) The law is somewhat complicated around serving restraining orders and sometimes it’s the sheriff, not a patrol officer, who does it. So the question becomes, why now, when this question wasn’t popular four or eight years ago? Domestic violence hasn’t obviously increased, but light research indicates that there have been important legal updates lately, including explicit coverage of cyberstalking, GPS tracking, and smart home device manipulation. I find all of this kind of depressing so let’s move on to the final suggestion: can a police officer date a felon?

This one is kind of fascinating. Is it police officers asking this, because they think felons are kind of hot? Or is it felons (convicted or not) who are kind of turned on by cops? I have to think there’s some frisson there; I mean, it’s not like anyone is asking if urban planners can date botanists. Specifically, this query puts me in mind of Lil Wayne’s song “Mrs. Officer,” which includes the passage, “Yeah, doing a buck in the latest drop /  Got stopped by a lady cop, haha / She got me thinking I can date a cop, haha / ‘Cause her uniform fit her so tight / She read me my rights / She put me in her car, she cut off all the lights…”

(If you’re puzzled by that first line, “doing a buck” is driving at 100 mph, and “latest drop” means a recently released luxury car model. So Lil Wayne goes from being the man, all cocky driving at insane speed in his high-status car, to suddenly being chastised by a cop, but without the terror that would normally accompany that … all in the span of a few short lines. It’s really very clever.)

Now, four years ago I’d have simply shrugged at the popularity of this Autocomplete suggestion because honestly, how could I really learn the reason without a whole lot of work? But now, of course, we have AI, and I asked Claude for some perspective. It replied, “The broader cultural backdrop is probably the explosive growth of true crime, prison content, and ‘felon influencer’ culture on social media over the past few years. People with criminal records have become a significant content demographic on TikTok, sharing their experiences openly in a way that simply wasn’t happening in 2018.” Who knew? I questioned Claude further about this trend, and it explained that “lot of felon-related content isn’t really ‘influencer’ content in the glamorous sense — it’s practical. ‘Can I get this job with a felony?’ ‘Can I rent an apartment?’ ‘Can a cop date me?’ These are real pressing questions for millions of Americans — there are roughly 19 million people in the U.S. with felony convictions — and TikTok became a place where people with lived experience answer those questions in a way that law-related websites don’t.”

And here’s where things get really strange: one of the search results Claude cited included “a “caption/hashtag description from a TikTok video: ‘I got stopped by a lady cop… she got me thinking i can date a cop #texas #fyp #viralvideo #texasstatetroopers.’” Remarkably, Claude surfaced this without the context of the Lil Wayne song I mentioned above. Whether this caption was a deliberate reference to the song or just an independent expression of the same widespread fantasy, we can only guess.

Wrapping up with our final query for today, we’ll see what Autocomplete suggests for “are you allowed to.” Here are the top five:

  • Are you allowed to fight in hockey
  • Are you allowed to be gay in the military
  • Are you allowed to carry a gun in California
  • Are you allowed to bring food on a plane
  • Are you allowed to go to Antarctica

The only suggestion that’s same as four years ago is fighting in hockey, which moved up from fourth place. I examined this topic at length in my previous post so if you’re interested, click here.

This second one might be a case of faulty memory. I mean, it’s such old news that “don’t ask, don’t tell” was repealed (this was in 2011, for crying out loud) that I have to suppose people have just forgotten. Either that, or people far below military age back then just weren’t paying attention. (In fairness, an 18-year-old now would have been just three then.) Or who knows, maybe people who were gainfully employed adults in 2011 ignored the issue then but are suddenly considering joining the military since corporate America laid them off. (On a related note, a popular query both four and eight years ago, “are you allowed to retire at age 50,” no longer appears in Autocomplete suggestions, surely because in modern times it’s beside the point: anyone approaching 50 can expect to be laid off at any time, so why not wait for the severance package?)

As for carrying a gun in California, four years ago we had a similarly popular query, “are you allowed to carry a knife in California.” I guess things are even scarier here now, but at least people have wised up a bit. I mean, illegal to carry a knife? Seriously? I carry a pocketknife on bike rides!

Now, the next one, “bring food on a plane,” is just ridiculous and reinforces the notion that Gen-Z is just slow to enter adulthood. Anyone asking this clearly hasn’t been to an airport and watched—and smelled—people bringing their takeout food with them to the plane. And it’s not like airport personnel are going to bother differentiating between airport food and “outside” food. What, they’re gonna be like, “Sir, that looks like a Ziploc bag. You didn’t make that sandwich at home, did you?” (And by the way, I’m pretty sure I’ve brought a burrito from home wrapped in foil, no less. Just don’t bring a beverage or a Go-gurt.)

Which brings us to the final Autocomplete suggestion, “are you allowed to go to Antarctica.” As with so many of these inquiries, I’m reminded of the question, “Which is a bigger problem—ignorance or apathy?” and its answer, “I don’t know and I don’t care.” That is, I’m tempted to conclude that people are strange, and not give the matter another thought. But it’s now too easy to chase this kind of thing down, and I’ve discovered that there was a famous Internet influencer (over a million followers) who last year, at age 19, landed a little plane illegally in Antarctica and was detained there for two months while they performed various experiments on him and eventually stole his kidneys. Okay, I drifted off into fantasy for  a moment there but most of the story is true and—should you care—you can read it here. But actually, what does this have to do with the legality of traveling to Antarctica (which has been serviced by tour groups for sixty years)? Is anybody actually thinking of going? Why aren’t people googling “are you allowed to plagiarize albertnet”? (By the way, you’re not.)

Tune in next week…

As you have doubtless noticed, this post went on a bit longer than I expected, so I’ll cut it off here for now and post Part II next week. Check back because I’ll be covering a number of other Autocomplete categories: Who, what, where, why, how, and the future.

Previous Autocomplete Zeitgeist posts

—~—~—~—~—~—~—~—~—
Email me here. For a complete index of albertnet posts, click here.