But what did any of that have to do with Microsoft, or even Google's practices?
The entire article was a tutorial on Bayes's rule, with a completely irrelevant introductory paragraph thrown in at the top. Nothing about Google or Microsoft's practices was actually mentioned anywhere.
Yes, the article was about simplifying statistical operations. The comments were inferring that some observed practices may have followed as a consequence. I'd prefer to discus the meat of the article, but it's not unusual to see comments go off on a tangent like this.
In this case, it was a quote of a relevant provocative sentence, where the provocation itself was irrelevant. Really, the title was far more intriguing than the quote, but unfortunately the article didn't quite live up to it.
The entire article was a tutorial on Bayes's rule, with a completely irrelevant introductory paragraph thrown in at the top. Nothing about Google or Microsoft's practices was actually mentioned anywhere.