The author seems to be suggesting that rather than discussing technical trade-offs and nuance, you instead ship whatever the other person proposes, even if you believe it is wrong, without going through the discussion.

I always interpreted "disagree and commit", at least in a healthy form, to be more about cases where, after both sides had presented their interpretation of a technical decision and both had understood the other's point of view, they still differed in opinion as to how it should be handled a meaningful way that was unlikely to be resolved from further communication. From there, rather than wasting more time on debating, simply agreeing to disagree, shipping to move on.

The key difference being that you aren't simply accepting whatever is told you, even if you believe it to be blatantly wrong, and silently shipping based on that feedback. You're actually engaging with each other and trying to solve the problem together but not getting locked in intractable arguments.

What OP is proposing seems significantly more toxic and honestly like something I would expect from someone playing corporate politics rather than trying to excel as an engineer.

6-12 months? Red flag 12-24 months, especially early-to-mid career? Not uncommon

I agree that housing affordability is a major problem and that looking at it independently could help you quantify if housing specifically has become more unaffordable, but that's a different question then whether the median person's overall purchasing power has declined (considering all of housing, healthcare food etc)

That said, I think throughout the post OP is mixing different dimensions of communicatiom together in a way that confuses the conversation - namely conciseness, directness, and explicitness - which while often overlapping aren't exactly the same.

Granted, it's been 1-2 weeks since I had an issue, so it may have changed since then, or it could be only released to a subset of users.

For example, even with the (digital-only) SAAS company I work at, we have a non-trivial amount of customers who with strong preferences to talk on the phone, ex to provide their credit card number, rather than enter it in the product. This is likely more pronounced if your product serves less tech-savvy niches.

That said, a strong preference for human call > website use doesn't necessarily imply even a weak preference for AI call > website use (likely customer-dependent, but I'd be surprised if the number with that preference was exactly 0)

It sounds like the direct increase to the consumer's prices is done by the restaurant itself, but the reason the restaurant is charging higher prices are to make up for the fees they're charged by UE/DD.

In other words, UE/DD restaurant-side service fees eat into the restaurant's profit margins, so the restaurant passes on the cost increases to the consumer to get them back.

To be clear, no idea about how closely these statements correspond to the world, just that this seems to be OP's claim.

For example, you could imagine a world where men are significantly more likely than women to commit DV, making some subset of that 28.5% men who have suffered at the hands of other men. It would also imply that gay women are less likely to experience DV, which would widen the gap further. That said, I believe many more couples are hetero than not, so maybe it wouldn't make much of a difference.

To be clear, I'm not making this specific claim about men, just illustrating that I think the statistic quoted doesn't _directly_ justify the claim "women aren't that much less likely to offend" (although it does lend credence to it)

That said, this is coming from me as a pedestrian, so maybe someone who was primarily a driver would have a completely different take from both of us.

For a typical fullstack dev building views, CRUDs, and simple DB schemas, less so

And you're probably right that most SWEs don't deal with math-adjacent things.

---

And just to be clear, none of what I'm saying is a value-statement on the types of work different "software engineers" do. It's just a question of categories, which I view as separate from utility

I also don't think most people who call themselves a "software engineer" fit that description though. My guess would be less than 10%?

Coming from a mechanical engineering background, I understood "engineering" as the application of science for problem solving - or, put simply, applied science. Some examples:

1. When a civil engineer applies solid mechanics to select a cross beam. 2. When an electrical engineer applies E&M to design a circuit. 3. When a mechanical engineer applies heat transfer to analyze cooling patterns on a laptop.

Under this definition, most "SWE" work isn't engineering - if anything, it's closer to applied math and logic?

That said, definitions are only useful inasmuch as they allow us to make sense of the world and communicate with others, so I'm not sure this is the most useful question

I think this was one of the best things that happened to me for my reading habit, and I'm incredibly glad I stumbled upon it sooner rather than later.

The only change I'd make, if possible, would've been to read it at a younger age (12-14) so my perception of what books can be would've been expanded sooner and I could've branched out from my comfort zone at the time.

Maybe this is obvious to me from having built website builders and themes for them, but when making a product that displays unknown, potentially user-generated content, it's to be expected that the content will be different from the boilerplate designs. Working around edge cases like image aspect ratios and words/sentences of varying length are a core part of the UI's development process.

All models are wrong, some models are useful, and in this case it seems more wrong than useful.

Edit: thought you were OP, whoops

For me, Infinite Jest helped me be more empathetic, which was an area I lacked a lot at the time, to the point that reading it was just clearly useful to me.

But other than that? It's hard to say. I derive a lot of pleasure from fiction, and find the experiences I get from them to be highly meaningful and to sometimes stay with me for years, not unlike memories of times with good friends. Whether or not that's of value to you as an individual just depends on your values.

Fiction: "Grapes of Wrath" by John Steinbeck. I've read other Steinbeck before this one, but this stands out as a clear masterpiece. I especially enjoyed the way he blended the experiences of specific individuals with the experiences of a general population - the narration style was very enjoyable.