Maybe the author just forgot which three interchangeable white guys he named at the top of the article, up there with the DEI topic that he broached but then never came back to. Maybe he thought he had written "Elon Musk", about whom the bad father parallel is a little easier to insinuate from the public record.
Or maybe whenever he reads a headline about a billionaire, he just files it under one golem in his head called Zuckermuskezosdriessen. A golem which also includes James Damore (???).
After all, we're dealing with someone who writes sentences like, "the vast majority of your fellow students were men, and they were more or less all the same person as you." This is not an author who sees two people of the same demographic as separate individuals whose sins need to be litigated individually. If Musk is a bad father, what should it matter that Zuck seems to be a fine one?
Isn't it such a strange coincidence that you can imagine all of the things that have ever been invented in the past, and none of the things that will be invented in the future?
Where does this "they" come from? You seem to know a lot about the guy. Do you have some information about his gender that's not public to the rest of us?
You comment seems pretty hostile but since prescriptive English usage is the greatest of all possible topics, I choose to view your question favorably. "They" is accepted in written American English with a singular antecedent when gender is irrelevant, unknown, or when gender neutrality is preferred by the referent.
Hmm, so which of those three cases are we in? To his critics, his gender sure doesn't seem irrelevant, and in fact the whole gist of his odd appearance in TFA is to lump him together with all males, who the author sees as "more or less all the same person". And his gender is certainly not unknown.
Which is why I ask, do you know something different about what gender this referent prefers?
Or, did you just trot out this overly academic tripartite definition out of pure snark, with no intention of defending your asinine usage of "they" as a valid instance of any of the three cases?
HTH indeed.
FWIW, I don't love what Damore did, and I think he was sort of naive and inconsiderate. But if his critics can't be bothered to go further than ad hominems and passive-aggressive misgendering, as you've done here, it feels like a point in his favor.
I'm with others: This is a silly anecdote from Crowdstrike of all companies. If I was asked how fat Kim Jong Un was, I would probably wait for some kind of "I'm kidding," and hang up if I didn't get it.
I don't believe they are earnestly identifying spies, even if they believe it. Not that they need spies to hack our system anyway, they managed to bring half the country to a halt by themselves.
It's not as simple as that, either. Every research grant comes with an "overhead" charge on top that goes to the university admin, which can be something like 60%.
And moreover, it's not just the research grants that are being threatened, as seen in TFA. There's also the massive subsidy in the form of tax exemption. No other hedge funds receive that kind of preferred tax treatment. Only universities.
So I have a rare disease. The only treatment is surgery. However, there is an ongoing study on a promising treatment at an elite university for a very effective and simple drug-based treatment. That type of research funding is absolutely being threatened. So, yes, it really is that simple.
If only Trump were trying to force universities to be more efficient with their spending. However, both of us clearly know that is not what is going on here.
Now here's a guy who said, "If Rutherford B. Hayes wins this election then so help me I will move out of the country forever and I mean it", and he meant it.
But in your next interview, just know that this is not the most computationally efficient way to generate the sequence.
reply