Exactly. GP brought her up as an example of a completely non-technical person transitioning to an engineer. That does align with the headline of her blog and c

Exactly. GP brought her up as an example of a completely non-technical person transitioning to an engineer. That does align with the headline of her blog and certainly with her mission to attract non-technical people to transition to SWE roles. However, when you read her actual career path, it's clear she never actually worked as an engineer: she started bootcamp in late 2017, then in mid 2018 she transitioned to technical writer and stayed in that role. To me, that post epitomizes a problem with language diffusion when it comes to the SWE debate. This results in predictable implicit forking of the term "engineer". You have folks like this lady who use the term to refer to any a technical or semi-technical job. Then you have folks who do actual engineering work, and hire for actual engineering positions, who know the former group isn't actually qualified to do said work. Also, the "engineer" title inflation is peaking when someone with zero technical background starts a bootcamp in late 2017, and by early 2018 holds a job with "engineer" in the title. The only result is the above forking, when the title has become essentially meaningless. > I'd argue that all of these jobs are dramatically easier than genuine coding because it's often deeply unclear how to measure the quality of the output. There's also a wide internal split between people who can write working code in some limited capacity and folks who can pick up almost any language and write a complete product in it. Think the difference between a junior frontend engineer who knows only the narrow path that was spoonfed to them in a bootcamp vs someone like Bill Gates who picks up C and writes an OS with it. This gap is the reason for the SWE compensation gap. FAANG, for instance, try to hire only the latter and universally avoid the former.