Look, invoking "straw man" is a bit of a cliche around here, but to say: > As an example, how seriously would you take an aircraft flight controls software eng

Look, invoking "straw man" is a bit of a cliche around here, but to say: > As an example, how seriously would you take an aircraft flight controls software engineer who willfully chooses to never learn how an airplane flies? What if they just claimed that their sole responsibility was to take flight requirements from “people who know how airplanes work” and implement code? is highly disingenuous given that learning to dig into what needs to be built is explicitly laid out in the article as the opposite of memorizing acronyms about how one might build it, and: > I think it is drastically foolish to defend the toleration of those who aren’t even willing to learn basics like how a computer works in the name of inclusivity, utilitarianism, or egalitarianism. seems to me to be far out of left field given that the article in question isn't speaking in the name of any of those things, but instead comparing to the value of other kinds of knowledge and expertise. If you feel the need to invoke "inclusivity" in this conversation, that only speaks to your own mindset. I would much rather work with people who are able to analyze what kinds of knowledge actually drive their getting better results at their job than with people who assume going lower on the stack must equal "excellence in engineering".