hellllllllooo

Q. "Why is there a push to discredit this study, seemingly all of a sudden?"

A. New evidence is available as stated clearly in the headline.

Agreed, but that wasn't what OP asked. It just seemed like an odd question given the headline explains that the reason this is being discussed is because there is new evidence available.

Who knows. The point is that what was reported isn't what happened so the original findings of the study are invalid and cannot be trusted.

To answer your question you'd want to do a new study where your question and the methodology is defined in advance. Defining the questions after an experiment has ended leads to bad conclusions because you are biased by having already seen what has happened and likely to fit your question to match the results.

The electric shock experiment (https://www.simplypsychology.org/milgram.html) seems similar to your question showing a willingness for people to go further than they normally would when asked to do so by an authority figure.

One example: By preventing phone manufacturers who use Android and Google services from also selling phones with other operating systems they are killing the opportunity for another phone OS from gaining traction.

We could have missed out on the opportunity for something better than Android being developed and we'll never know. It's called dumping; flooding the market with something free to kill competition and make sure Google is in the majority of hands in Europe.

Wow. We've seen people microtarget leaders and CEOs with ads on Facebook to get a job.

http://twicsy-blog.tumblr.com/post/174063770074/how-i-target...

This is a case where microtargeting the boss hopefully cost them their job. This is completely unethical.

It's crazy how the large companies file so many patents for any idea their employees can think of. We used to have a lawyer come to our desks once a month and they would try patent any idea you could come up with even off the top of your head. Not sure how small companies can compete when larger companies can buy up all the IP in a space without having to do any work. The smaller companies I've worked for have to be very selective about what they spend time and money patenting.

Please offer some facts or evidence to clarify it then? All you are offering is an opinion.

2 years of savings is a crazy suggestion. 3-6 months should be fine especially if you've got top tier company on your resume.