Those that already read the "What If?" section might want to jump to 7:10, which is when he explains what happens after he publishes the article about punchcards[1]. I mean, it's a nice talk, and if you haven't read the article then totally watch it, but as I already read it...
Rolling backup is at least one use case. This is why they only guarantee data destruction after 180 days (at least per the last document I read about it) for Apps customers.
I'm sort of confused by this gif. I wouldn't look at it and say "that girl turning her head in one direction repeatedly means no comment". If it were funny, and actually had some sort of "denied" slant to it, then fine, but this particular gif makes no sense to me as a response to a request for comment. I guess when you have as much money as Google does you can be as disrespectful to reporters as you like, but at least try to be entertaining.
If you really want to decode the comment, it looks like it's from the Disney Show "Good Luck Charlie" [1] and the actress in the clip is Mia Talerico. You could watch every episode to try and find out what she was saying.
I know this because I have a nine year old daughter (but to be fair, it's not the worst show Disney make).
Reminds me of the GIF Detectify got from Google after getting into their production servers because of a vulnerability in the "Google Toolbar" portal [1] :
So the security team thought it was worth such a crazy amount that they made a gif to describe it...and then they sent him $10K? That isn't very much for a major bug like that.
How can an officiel website say "even when a president tries to unlawfully refuse to enforce our laws" ? It doesn't seem very neutral, I wouldn't except such an article to challenge the decision taken by the president of a country.
It's the website of the House Judiciary Committee, which is controlled by Republicans, and hence can and does challenge the President. In turn, the White House website, which is controlled by Democrats, can and does challenge Congress.
Both sites could, of course, adopt a stance of editorial neutrality. I would prefer they not, though -- both are fundamentally political organizations, so to do so would be eliding their true nature.
Not to mention that the whole purpose for the three branches of government is so that each branch will "check and balance" the other branches. The fundamental structure of the system is based on the premise that each branch should not be neutral with regards to the other branches.
Doesn't surprise me. I released a couple easter eggs when I was at Google (notably [festivus] and [let it snow]), and the official response PR prepared for one of them was a poem. It's part of Google's quirky culture.
Google also did this when they had the Google Toolbar remote exploit vulnerability reported and the guy asked about the reward, a good read on its own:
Am I alone in thinking this is utterly infantile behaviour?
It makes me rather sad that the art of correspondence (the beautiful letters of bygone times) is now gradually being replaced with Facebook Messenger and animated GIFs.
This particular one is a funny-once, as Manny the narrator character said to Mike the newly-conscious computer in Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.
(Manny also said something like, the second time it's half-funny, with a geometric progression downward.)
It's possible to look at the glass as half-full: People can still write nice letters, and sometimes do (often by email), but they also have other avenues of creative expression.
I am a huge, huge fan of imageboard culture, which reaction gifs are _undeniably_ derived from, but I believe just as strongly that it's not something you should let "leak" into normal communication, especially not professional communication. So yes, I agree.
If it's an exception - no. It's fun and it gives a new fresh look to big, evil corporations (but Google is not evil anyway [1]).
If it were a rule - yes, definitely infantile and weird.
A term like "infantile" when used in a derogatory manner is predicated on the idea that being young is something to be ashamed of. You should avoid it.
No, you're not. Plus I thought we left animated gifs back in 2013 where they belong (or was it 2012?).
On a more interesting note, someone should revisit Giambattista Vico's theory about language. The closest that I could find on the English internet after a 30-second search was this (http://www.philosophypathways.com/fellows/fahey.pdf - PDF link):
> Vico borrows the three ages of human history from the Egyptians. As shown above, the
languages which corresponds to each are, first, the mute language of signs and physical objects;
second, the language of symbols, comparisons, images and metaphors. The third is vernacular
or epistolary language.
It seems like we're about to fall from the third stage ("epistolary language", which you mention) to the second stage, that of "symbols, images and metaphors". Now, what that means exactly I don't know.
As somebody who has a SO who works at Google, thus giving me a bit of insight into the culture, I can factually say that gifs and lolcat-like memes have already started replacing the English language there.
https://youtu.be/I64CQp6z0Pk?t=2m59s