> What's standard is what happens in reality. Infering what is "reality" from a sample size of ~0.0001% is clearly ridiculous. By that logic, it would be "stan

> What's standard is what happens in reality. Infering what is "reality" from a sample size of ~0.0001% is clearly ridiculous. By that logic, it would be "standard" to be born a conjoined twin. Actually, it would be 10x as likely as what "standard" is. > I'm clearly not talking about statistics. You might benefit from doing so, though. It might help you realize what nonsense you are saying. > DannyBee focuses his efforts on discrediting this seemingly exceptionally qualified candidate No, this is factually incorrect. Repeating something factually incorrect doesn't make it more correct. > never yielding an inch from his position that Google is exceptional and can make no mistakes. You either can't or won't read. They very clearly acknowledged the possibility of a mistake several times in each post they made.