Even with the subtitle, the comment still holds true. The article makes the bird out to be very rare so that we'll be upset about it when it's killed. And then much later in the article the writer reveals that it's not actually certain how rare this bird is. In fact, apparently it's seen all the time by the locals. So now that we emotionally invested in this bird on false pretenses, we are now supposed to decide whether or not we care that it was murdered.

Programmer destroys unique software configuration

On Tuesday in Redomond, VA, a programmer uncovered a unique software configuration that was being activated under very specific circumstances. This specific software configuration had never been seen before. The programmer then proceeded to simply erase the unique configuration from existence, removing any trace of it from the master codebase.

Locals in Redmond say that such configurations are rather common and call them "bugs".

I was puzzled for a while, but then found out Xtreme Consulting have offices in Redmond -- guess you're talking about them.

I believe the company he was referring to have their offices at : One Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA

And yet, during the next demo, there it was once again

However, it has a different problem. It says he was searching the bird for two decades. I doubt one could get a bird to hold still for that long to be searched.

It should, of course, read "A scientist's decision to kill a bird he'd been searching for for two decades". (I see the problem is in the original.) Alternatively, one could say "... seeking for two decades".

<pedantic grammar-nerd grin>

I would argue that "two decades" can stand alone with the meaning "for two decades". However, your criticism's still justified because it's a garden-path construction.

Happy to increment the fors, but that doesn't solve your ambiguity objection. It merely turns "searching" back into the intransitive verb it should be.

Thanks — but I don't get your comment. How is it still ambiguous?

Argh I misread you the first time. Sorry! Good one.