The article is good, but I think it communicates with a narrower audience than it intended to in terms of demographics, especially the ones who do not work in n

The article is good, but I think it communicates with a narrower audience than it intended to in terms of demographics, especially the ones who do not work in nice tech companies. For instance that passage: > I first found definitions of 10x engineers, superstars, or rockstar developers, which aren’t definitions of good engineers in any way. Someone may produce a lot of work but it’s often at the cost of team spirit and results in low-quality code. Ultimately, the team is demoralized and the organization bears the cost of substandard code. I used to work in a tech company (bytes), and now I am working in an old money/traditional company (atoms) that uses technology marginally to stay ahead. My team's (a couple of dozens) median age is 53, and I do not see how this relates to them or even to myself. I definitely would like to hear more from "Working Bee Engineer", "Dark Matter Engineer", "How I survived 25 layoffs Engineer", "How I kept my sanity working with internal clients Engineer", "I managed to raise kids being in Tech as Engineer", "The bodybuilder/triathlete/sports(wo)man Engineer" and so on. I'm not being cynical, but I miss the old days of actionable and down-to-earth blogposts that anyone could relate to.