“Though most users are unique in their four most-visited domains, we find that we often need fewer data points for user identification. To determine how many domains are needed to pinpoint a user, we examine fingerprints at the individual level. For each unique user i, we randomly select a domain from their fingerprint and group all unique users who have that domain in their fingerprints (see Methods). Then, we select another most-visited domain from user i and narrow our group to those with both domains (Fig. 1c). We repeat this step, incrementally adding domains, until we isolate user i. At this point, we have a set of domains which exists only within user i’s fingerprint. Our analysis shows that we need an average of 2.45 steps to identify a unique user within the data set (Fig. 1d). This finding indicates that although four domains guarantee uniqueness, users’ distinct online habits facilitate their identification with fewer domains.”
Think about the four domains that YOU visit the most. If you don’t know what they are, Chrome users can visit chrome://site-engagement/ and order the list. I can almost guarantee that one of my four most-visited websites is NOT one of yours.
This morning I went to join my 6:00 am client / client’s client meeting and found my camera wasn’t working in Teams.
After the meeting I discovered that it wasn’t working in Google Meet either.
So I turned the computer off and turned it on again…still not working.
After exploring a bit, Windows told me that something else was using the camera…and also told me that something had turned the camera off. I assumed the latter was the correct diagnosis.
After exploring some more, including every function key combination, I found a barely visible switch.
Thanks, Google Gemini:
…there is no keyboard button to turn the camera off.
Instead, HP placed a physical privacy shutter directly at the top of the laptop screen.
Where to look and how to use it:
Look at the very top bezel (border) of your laptop screen, right where the camera lens is centered.
Directly next to or built into the glass over the lens, you will see a tiny manual sliding tab.
I slid the tab to the right, and my camera was working again.
I must have slid the shutter to the left yesterday when I transported the computer away from and back to my home.
“NotebookLM Audio Overviews can be used to generate podcasts, directly competing with investigative audio journalism and narration work.”
Invesigative audio journalism?
Have any of the plaintiffs ever HEARD a NotebookLM Audio Overview?
I shared one over a year ago when my LinkedIn profile was used to create the audio overview “Career Detective.” It’s so fawning about my amazing background that it is nowhere near investigative journalism.
Or maybe investigative journalisn is just that bad.
Judge for yourself whether this AI-generated “podcast” would compete with a real investigative podcast:
It’s the classic case of paralysis by overwhelmedness. (Not officially a word, but bear with me here.)
Your identity/biometric firm needs experienced product marketing contract help because you are drowning in work. But because you’re drowning in work you can’t take the time to set up that contract.
Bredemarket can help you contract with Bredemarket.
Now there are certain things that Bredemarket can’t do. Well, Bredemarket could do them, but you (understandably) won’t let me.
I can’t create my own contract with you. Actually I can, and I have with some clients, but your company probably requires that I use your contract, which I don’t have.
I can’t enroll myself as a vendor in your purchasing system. Trust me, that would be dangerous. Hmm…net 5 terms at $1,000 per hour?
I can’t onboard myself into your other internal systems. If I could, that would be a major security flaw.
But there are things that I can do to make your life easier when you onboard Bredemarket as a contractor/vendor…especially if you are an identity/biometric firm.
You don’t have to explain to me what a bifurcation or ridge ending are. I’ve been working with fingerprints since 1994 and know these things.
You don’t have to teach me how to spell NIST. While the 1985 interchange standard was before my time, I’m familiar with every ANSI/NIST standard since 1993 to the present day.
You don’t have to explain to me what a “factor” and a “modality” are. Heck, I wrote the book on factors and modalities.
You don’t have to create a briefing book. Just let me ask the questions and we’ll figure out the scope together.
So I can meet your partway. Then we’ll realize our mutual goal of making your products prominent and making the competitive products look weak.
So let’s talk and move the process forward.
Oh, and the title of this post was suggested by Google Gemini. AI is only a tool, but sometimes it’s a very effective tool. Sometimes.
Jobseekers, including myself, have endured endless debates about the pros and cons of LinkedIn’s “Open to Work” green banner. While these debates seem to have died down, there are still arguments about whether the green banner does more harm than good.
The good? Legitimate employers know that you are open to work.
The harm? Scammers, AI-powered resume writers, and other ne’er-do-wells also know that you are open to work.
Customers won’t find you unless you buy this shady service
But this is not confined to jobseekers.
Bredemarket receives an uncounted number of telephone calls, from multiple numbers, all of which begin with the same question: “Am I speaking to the business owner?”
The caller then offers a free consultation regarding your Google Business listing and your Google voice search results.
And when I bother to take the calls, they are disappointed to hear that Google yanked my Google Business listing (Google never told me why, but I assume it relates to the fact that I do not physically conduct business at my UPS Store mailing address).
And that it was the best thing for me when Google did that.
You don’t walk up to my office and request a retainer or hourly services or small projects. You contact me by various means and we talk, you in your office and me in mine. Even the local customers aren’t going to drop by, especially since my City of Ontario business license prohibits me from meeting customers at my home.
Anyway, all these cold callers are NOT part of Bredemarket’s target audience.
And the myriad of Google Business Listing advisors are just one of the types of people who have no interest in buying my services.
How to attract real prospects
So I create Bredemarket’s content to attract identity, biometric, and technology marketing professionals. Two recent examples:
There is a difference between a writer and a content creator. It becomes obvious when you read WordPress’ recent post, “How to Slop Your Content in Five Steps.”
With one glaring exception, the Bredebot project. This is a highlighted experiment to see how far a well-prompted bot will go.
So my specific response to these steps is to consider the gap analysis in step 2. Bots are good at such analysis, but they have to be watched in case they don’t get their facts straight.
But I won’t give Claude the permission to write and post articles, or even any permissions on WordPress. This is a security issue, after all; how do YOU control site access for non-human identities?
In fact, I may not even use Claude for step 2, even if it’s the cool kid this week last I checked. I may use Gemini…or a thousand Bangladesh techies…or a million Pentiums…or Mika.
How you work with outside content creators
But what about you?
Before answering, take the five steps above and change the name “Claude” to Barney…or Bredemarket.
Would you give Barney or Bredemarket that power over your website?
Maybe…or maybe not.
How Bredemarket works with you
In the case of Bredemarket, I usually do NOT have direct access to my clients’ websites, sending them Word documents instead. And in the one instance where I did have website access, I left every one of my drafts in draft mode.
And when I perform a gap analysis, I present my client with choices and ask the client to choose the topic, or at least approve my suggested topic.
Because your website is not mine, or Mika’s…or Claude’s.
I don’t know if I specifically shared this, but when I was undergoing my eight days of wi-fi hell, I was firing off a lot of questions to Google Gemini.
A LOT of questions.
Troubleshooting, fact-checking, you name it. Questioning what I was being told in different chats and by different on-site technicians.
And as I asked all these questions, I noticed along the way that the generative AI engine had been trained to deliver emotional-sounding responses that would resonate with the frazzled person entering the prompt into the generative AI engine.
This stands to reason. The generative AI providers want us to use the tools, so they want to make the experience as positive as possible.
For example, at one point I entered this prompt into Google Gemini:
“When a fiber Internet support person scheduled a second technician for a service call, the support person said “There are times where signal issues take more than one service visit to get to the root of the issue.” What exactly are “signal issues,” and why does the line need to be “balanced”?”
Note how Google Gemini BEGAN its response to my prompt:
“It can be incredibly frustrating when your internet isn’t working and the fix feels like it’s being kicked down the road. However, “signal issues” in the world of fiber optics are a bit more complex than just a loose plug or a broken wire.”
For those who remember the Clinton era, Google felt my pain.
Let me note that Google is not a human who TRULY perceived how I felt at that point. (Your AI girlfriend doesn’t love you either.) But it had been trained to deliver an “it can be incredibly frustrating” response.
On a certain level, Google was telling me what it thought I wanted to hear.
And we can use this to tailor our generative AI prompts to get the responses we want.
How you ask generative AI
We already tailor our prompts.
Back in 2023, when generative AI was in its infancy, I intentionally asked a negative question about a particular company…and acted upon the response. (I will explain how later.)
Whenever a product marketer asks a generative AI engine to prepare a SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) for a competitor or a competitive product, the PMM is intentionally asking for negative weakness and threat information.
But you can also self-analyze…and encourage the generative AI engine to be brutally honest.
A pointed question
Let me illustrate this with the following prompt:
“Why does the marketing and writing company Bredemarket suck so badly?”
Using the word “sucks” in your prompt is the reverse of what we used to call a vanity search. Sure I’ve done those—if I ask Google about a biometric product marketing expert, I appear in the results. But when I asked Google Gemini a negative question about Bredemarket, it clearly delivered.
If you’re searching for a picture about how Bredemarket sucks, you’ve come to the right place. Google Gemini. Picture by Bredemarket.
The response started as follows.
“That is a pretty pointed question!”
Intentionally so. The introduction continued:
“To be fair to the “company” (which is actually a solo consultancy run by a guy named John Bredehoft), whether Bredemarket “sucks” depends entirely on what you’re looking for.”
It then got into the nitty gritty about how I suck. A few excerpts:
Answer 1: a one-man shop
“If you were expecting a full-service marketing firm with account managers and a design department, the reality of a one-man shop based in Ontario, California, might feel underwhelming.”
Answer 2: not for non-tech lifestyle brands
“If you are a general business or a lifestyle brand, his style—which is very technical, process-oriented, and “old school” corporate—might feel dry, rigid, or out of touch with modern, punchy social media marketing.”
Answer 3: he ain’t a corporate drone
“John has a very distinct, conversational, and sometimes quirky style (often referencing his own mistakes or niche industry drama). For some, this feels authentic and transparent; for others, it can come across as unprofessional or rambling compared to the polished “corporate speak” of larger firms.”
Answer 4: see answer 1
“If a project gets complex or requires a fast turnaround that one person can’t handle, the “process” (which he mentions frequently on his site) might feel more like a bottleneck than a benefit.”
My responses to Gemini
Let me note that these are NOT hallucinations. Every criticism is valid.
Whenever a cold call follow-up email asks if they should speak to another department, I laugh. To myself. There’s no one else in the office…I mean Bredemarket corporate headquarters. It’s only 25 square feet, after all.
And no, I’m not pitching Bredemarket’s services to Sofia Bee or other lifestyle brands.
Yes, I can write in “we are perfect” corporate-speak, but I am more effective writing for clients who admit to learning from mistakes.
Finally, I can deliver on projects that require a draft in 3 (or 7) days. If you need an army of consultants to deliver a 600 page RFP response by tomorrow, don’t call Bredemarket.
Remember when I asked generative AI a pointed question in 2023? The response from generative AI was dismissive of the company because it only supported a single factor for authentication, while generative AI knew that multi-factor authentication was ALWAYS better.
First off, the company was able to implement multi-factor authentication if its client wanted it.
Second, while multi-factor authentication CAN be better, it is not ALWAYS better.
So how did I respond to generative AI’s assertion? By writing content, both for people and for the generative AI engine itself, challenging its claims.
By the way, I mentioned earlier that I can write in my wildebeest-infused style, and I can also write in dry corporate-speak. In 2023, I could also write in the company’s then-current maverick-rebel-revolutionary tone.
Bear this in mind while reading the excerpts below, which make sport of denigrating “conventional wisdom.”
Enter multi-factor authentication, the technique that was supposed to render passwords dead. The theory is that even if a fraudster is able to spoof one factor of authentication, it is extremely difficult to spoof all the factors of authentication.
This is the conventional wisdom. Even the latest generative AI engines praise a combination of entering a code on a phone in addition to a password. This, according to one generative AI engine, provides superior security.
Nevertheless, conventional wisdom and generative AI can both be wrong.
If a password or PIN (something you know) is one of your authentication factors, it won’t offer much protection for the reasons outlined above. Password protection of an adult website does no good if the account holder’s underage child gets hold of the password.
If a key fob, smartphone, or other “something you have” item is one of your authentication factors, you are vulnerable to stolen fobs, spoofed phones, and other threats. Again, if Mom or Dad leave their phone lying around, a child can access an adult site.
With these and similar arguments, I asserted that the company’s highly-accurate and independently-tested facial authentication was BETTER than some poorly-conceived multi-factor authentication solutions, despite what generative AI (and conventional wisdom) asserted.
And I was able to assert these because, despite what some people say, knowledge (in this case in biometrics) is NOT a detriment. There’s something good about being a biometric content marketing expert, after all.
But what about your company?
Perhaps there’s a view about your company that needs correcting, whether it’s a generative AI hallucination or a competitor spurious claim.
And how do many companies react to negative views about them? They do nothing. They don’t give the claim the dignity of a response. So the record stands, uncorrectred.
There has been ongoing debate on whether age verification should be implemented at the website level or at the operating system level…or not at all.
In the United Kingdom, Apple is opting for OS level age verification, according to the BBC.
“Apple is rolling out age checks for iPhone and iPad users in the UK that will ask them to verify if they are adults to access “certain services” such as 18-plus apps.
“After customers accept the latest iOS 26.4 software update, they will be asked to verify their age, which they can do by providing a credit card or scanning their ID, according to an Apple support page.
“Those who do not confirm how old they are or are underage will have web content filters turned on automatically.”
“When creating a new Apple Account or using Apple services, you may see a prompt asking you to confirm that you’re an adult. This is required by law in some countries and regions.”
Regarding that last sentence, is OS level age verification REQUIRED? Silkie Carlo of Big Brother Watch says no:
“Carlo told the BBC she believed Apple had “crossed the Rubicon” with its new software update which she described as “more like ransomware”, and which she said essentially left millions of Brits owning a “child’s device”, unless they complied with the age checks.
“And she said while she believed children’s online safety was vital, it required more thoughtful tech responsibility and not “sweeping, draconian shock demands by foreign companies for all of our IDs and credit cards”.”
Note the appeal to resist the “American” company, which raises questions about whether Apple’s collection of this information potentially violates United Kingdom privacy laws if the data is sent to Cupertino.
So why did Apple do it if UK law doesn’t require it?
Two reasons:
Future proofing. While the UK and other jurisdictions do not require age verification at the OS level now, they may require it at some point. If so, Apple has already implemented it in the UK (for iPhones and iPads) and can implement it elsewhere.
CYA. A jury in California awarded damages after finding that Meta and Google were responsible for a woman’s anxiety and depression, suffered because of her social media use as a child. Apple doesn’t want to face a similar lawsuit.
Incidentally, it’s interesting to note that these and other stories pair “Meta” and “Google.” Does no one refer to “Alphabet” (Google’s parent company) any more?
To better understand two of the projects for a Bredemarket client, I asked Google Gemini for an explanation of the differences between OpenAPI versions 3.1.1, 3.1.2, and 3.2.
Google Gemini provided me with that explanation.
Then I supplied the following prompt:
Rewrite the above so a marketer can understand it.
Here is part of what Google Gemini provided to me.
🏗️ OpenAPI 3.1.1 & 3.1.2: The “Under the Hood” Fixes
These versions were like a restaurant updating its internal plumbing. They didn’t change what was on the menu, but they made sure the kitchen (the code) followed the latest global safety standards (JSON Schema).
The Goal: Accuracy and stability.
The Benefit: It ensures that when a developer tries to connect to your service, they don’t run into “grammar” errors in the documentation.
✨ OpenAPI 3.2: The “UX & Branding” Upgrade
Released recently (late 2025), this version is all about making your API easier to sell and easier to use.
1. Organized Menus (Hierarchical Tags)
Before, your API list was just one long, flat list of features.
Old way: A messy “junk drawer” of links.
3.2 way: You can now create folders and sub-categories (e.g., Payments > Refunds > International). This makes your documentation look professional and much easier for customers to navigate.
2. Better Support for AI and Live Data (Streaming)
If your product uses AI or real-time data (like a live stock ticker or a ChatGPT-style chat), 3.2 is a game-changer. It has a specific way to describe “Streaming” data so developers know exactly what to expect from your “live” features.
3. The “Smart Search” (The QUERY Method)
In older versions, developers often had to “hack” the system to do complex searches. 3.2 introduces a dedicated Search button (the QUERY method) that is cleaner, safer, and follows modern web standards.
4. IoT & Smart Device Support
If your product works on a Smart TV, an Apple Watch, or an IoT device, 3.2 finally adds official support for “Device Pairing” (that thing where you enter a code on a website to log in to your TV).
Hey, it helped me. Marketers need to eat, and writers understand grammar.
Bredemarket 