miss_represent

tl;dr

The author was away from home for so long that his new territory felt more like home.

Confused and overwhelmed at mixed feelings regarding his return, he felt homesick for the alien culture that he came to enjoy so much, while he was travelling abroad.

He was thus disappointed by the inversion of feelings he was originally expecting. He is not happy about returning to America.

The article attempts to relate several hypothetical anecdotes, informally, but is otherwise scant on actual evidence.

Here and there, are sprinkled vague nods towards unnamed "researchers" and "the new way" but not many specifics on who, when or how. Mostly it's just: Trust us, here's how it is now.

The article uses only one name, and only aims to chip away at it. It has no new celebrities, no names stepping forward to take credit for the incredible breakthroughs that destroy the old and oh-so-inferior.

The authors, and the editor are after something. But they offer nothing (or very little) in exchange, pre-supposing that it's just common sense which prevails over the tyrrany of something innately unlikable.

Not sure why linguistics ruffles some people's feathers. It's such a dry, imprecise sociological subject after all.

EDIT: they make a single mention, in passing, of research by Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker, but very briefly, and don't return to it afterward.

As much as I'm not a fan of misrepresentation, I think Microsoft's practices, in general, are deceptive and wasteful, and promote administrative and operational policies among IT and ops teams that perform comparably.