And you'd only think I said it was a "contradiction" if you didn't read what I wrote.

I wrote that BOTH were going on. Under-regulation, and over-regulation. Adding up to MIS-regulation.

This is just plain a silly thing to say. Logic 101:

Person 1: "We think X causes Y because: we have not observed Y before now, and X is a recent phenomenon, so it is reasonable to suppose that X may be causing Y."

Person 2: "Um... my recent research shows that Y has been happening continually since time immemorial."

Person 1: "Shit."

It also gives government excuses for draconian legislation which gives them orders of magnitude more control over parts of the economy than it ever had before.

(By the way: there were numerous problems with Arrhenius' apparatus. Not the least of which is that it was, in effect, a real greenhouse... and the "greenhouse effect" is a different effect than the one that actually warms greenhouses.)

Huh? Since when?

I don't care if it's the cubes or the break room. Pointedly saying "we will be monitoring" kills good will every time.

I have. It always leaves a mess to clean up later, but it's sometimes the difference between having a product team to clean up the mess or having the whole thing die. I've also seen startups fail because the development team refused to cut corners, resulting in missing the market window of opportunity.

Context matters.

I did read the article and the original article from which the linked article got its information.

You are making the same point I was, in different words. But my comment was about OP, in particular.

The original article does not even contain the word "climate", much less "climate change".

Yes, it does. The argument was thus: the Emporer Penguins are changing locations, and they were not known to do that before. Therefore a possible cause is "climate change".

However, this research says that they did, in fact, do it before. Therefore the explanation of man-driven climate change as a probable cause IS weakened, because it has occurred in the past due to other causes. Q.E.D.

Projected by whom? Please be specific. History says otherwise. It has been both warmer and colder before, in the Antarctic. In recorded history, even. In fact, even in just the last century. Look up 1937.

Really? Would you care to have a contest?

Again: really? Let's see: he has personally pushed EPA rules without Congressional input, which is arguable illegal. He has engaged troops and materiel in wartime activities, again without approval of Congress, which is definitely illegal. He has engaged in killing American citizens without trial or conviction, which is illegal about 100 different ways, both domestically and internationally.

But more to the point: Obama personally approved expansions of NSA surveillance, and weakening of Constitutional protections. We know this from leaked documents. His "plausible deniability" is so full of holes you could use it for a screen door.

I wasn't trying to suggest it was Obama's idea. But it's the one he has been pushing.

No, because even if snark, it was still wrong. A sarcastic comment would suggest that there was under-regulation. But that's clearly wrong, too. There is more regulation now than ever before.

Addendum:

If anything, this research actually weakens any argument that recent relocations are due to climate change, because it suggests that that they always have done it, long into the past.

Any connection to "climate change" was purely speculative on the part of the article writer.

The research actually suggested that Emperor Penguins always had changed locations periodically. There is no evidence that modern times are in any way different.

The only thing this is "evidence" of is that lots of people today will try to blame anything and everything on "climate change".

Cite?

I should also mention that Google's interview process deliberately chooses to err on the side of rejecting qualified people in order to avoid hiring unqualified people. Since no one knows how to accurately discern between them, Google prefers to reject good people rather than risk hiring those who can't cut it. So the fact that you didn't get the offer doesn't mean you weren't qualified.

It's generally accepted that if you took a successful Google engineer and ran him (or her, but it's usually him) through the hiring process (blind, no one realizing he already works for Google), there's about a 50/50 chance he'd make it.

Also, if you're interested in giving it another shot, e-mail me.

I strongly doubt that age was the issue -- and I say this as a 45 year-old Google engineer, who got hired at age 42, and works with a bunch of other (recently-hired) engineers in their 40s, 50s and even 60s. I also work with a bunch of younger engineers.

Google isn't perfect, of course, but it's the closest thing I've seen to a pure meritocracy in my 25 years in the industry.