Standard operating practice in any takeover is to say "We love what you do, won't change a thing, carry on and we won't interfere." This prevents immediate hemorrhaging of both customers and knowledge-work employees (who in reality should flee as soon as possible). But it's fundamentally a lie or, at to be as charitable as one can be, a temporary measure. I did believe it the first time I heard it, when I was young at working at my first job; but not after that.
The primary thing that worked for Bloomberg is making billions of dollars on Wall Street. (For example, he was laid off from his first job at Solomon Brothers with a $10 million severance package for starters.) With that money he's been able to bend and break a lot of the rules about becoming and staying NYC mayor -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bloomberg
Skeptical -- citation needed.
"This poll is of only 1000 people, though; your mileage may vary."
Hey look -- it's the dumbest goddamn thing you can say about statistics.
Wolfram Alpha agrees: says it's a prime number.
Good lesson: You're probably not going to solve a math problem that's been open for millennia with 3 lines of work and a snarky conclusion.
Hmmm, I guess you must mean "for n greater than 11" (not "P_n greater than 11").
You should have explicated how the contradiction establishes that the original assumption must be wrong (i.e., the primes cannot be finitely listed). Not everyone understands proof by contradiction, so leaving it unstated was asking for trouble.
"Doesn't it make a lot of sense?"
The Facebook phone flops like few phones have ever flopped. Zuckerberg's lobbying group is collapsing like few lobbying groups have ever collapsed (http://techcrunch.com/2013/05/12/why-zuckerbergs-lobby-fwd-is-collapsing-like-a-house-of-cards-outside-of-dc/).
Many of us are stuck with Facebook due its powerful networking effects (much like AT&T in the old days). But still the FB brand is renowned as being member-abusive, terrible about privacy, cavalier about interface changes and wiping out settings, etc. Perhaps this is a sign that few people are interested in letting FB expand its grip on their lives.
They were not planning any such thing. Their original raw plans were to set off some smoke and take down some signs, until the FBI plant got involved. This is the Associated Press (http://news.yahoo.com/fbi-5-men-arrested-wanted-blow-ohio-bridge-143112191.html):
"Baxter, Wright and Hayne considered different plots over time, including distracting law enforcement with smoke grenades while trying to bring down financial institution signs in downtown Cleveland."
Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/08/fbi-occupy-wall-street-occupy-cleveland_n_2435224.html):
"Shaquille Azir, ex-con, bank robber, forger, passer of bad checks, and FBI informant, first visited Occupy Cleveland the night the activists were evicted from their camp. The young men were homeless, looking for a cause and a paycheck. At best they were failed gutter punks. It took months of convincing by Azir to get the plot in motion. After the camp folded, Azir gave the penniless Occupy activists construction jobs, and plied them with beer while they worked. He sent them home, according to a Rolling Stone magazine account, with more beer, weed and prescription drugs. At first, the activists rebuffed Azir's arms-dealer friend, who was an FBI agent. Azir continued to press them."
In-depth article at Rolling Stone on this and other recent FBI procedures -- http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/how-fbi-entrapment-is-inventing-terrorists-and-letting-bad-guys-off-the-hook-20120515
I am on a browser. My browser has tabs. "Always show the tab bar" is unchecked. Slashdot is the only thing loaded. So: No tabs are open.
"After all, they've actually tried to blow up bridges(Ohio)..."
You mean that totally made-up thing where an FBI plant persuaded people to do this ridiculous thing, gave them fake material, directed them where to put it, and then arrested them? Like they do routinely to convince people their doing anti-terror stuff? Looks like you fell for it.
"...perfect code is worth nothing if it never sees the day of light."
Of course, if one is habituated to writing in a sloppy fashion, then one can look foolish when things do get publicly presented.
I had this issue at both of the programming jobs I held before leaving the industry. One was epically bad -- I could have written the OP in just the same words myself.
The problem is that this senior coder comes off as a hero and superman to the higher management. From where they sit, it looks like this guy just ships code and solves all their problems -- regardless of how much it holds the rest of the software staff back in the process (his bad code hygiene is effectively invisible to managers). Also, since he's been there longer he's likely also good buddies with managers on a personal basis. Also, he's just senior staff and so has that ahead of you as well.
There is no way you can change his slash-and-burn work process, and all the rest of the institution will be actively encouraging him for more of the same. You cannot win this one except by leaving some day. This could possibly be switching to a different project, or changing jobs to a different company. Get what you can out of this job and start look for a switch.