For your second point, DannyBee focuses his efforts on discrediting this seemingly exceptionally qualified candidate, never yielding an inch from his position that Google is exceptional and can make no mistakes.
Infering what is "reality" from a sample size of ~0.0001% is clearly ridiculous. By that logic, it would be "standard" to be born a conjoined twin. Actually, it would be 10x as likely as what "standard" is.
> I'm clearly not talking about statistics.
You might benefit from doing so, though. It might help you realize what nonsense you are saying.
> DannyBee focuses his efforts on discrediting this seemingly exceptionally qualified candidate
No, this is factually incorrect. Repeating something factually incorrect doesn't make it more correct.
> never yielding an inch from his position that Google is exceptional and can make no mistakes.
You either can't or won't read. They very clearly acknowledged the possibility of a mistake several times in each post they made.
Inferring what's standard from a sample size of 1 (which is ~0.0001%) is very questionable.
> Still, you spend all your effort on saying why for example this guy's patents mean nothing and he's likely incompetent.
That is not at all what they where saying. They where saying that patents aren't conclusive evidence of competency.