The skill isn’t being right. It’s entering discussions to align on the problem.
   Clarity isn’t a style preference - it’s operational risk reduction.
   The punchline isn’t “never innovate.” It’s “innovate only where you’re uniquely paid to innovate.”
   This isn’t strictly about self-promotion. It’s about making the value chain legible to everyone.
   The problem isn’t that engineers can’t write code or use AI to do so. It’s that we’re so good at writing it that we forget to ask whether we should.
   This isn’t passive acceptance but it is strategic focus.
   This isn’t just about being generous with knowledge. It’s a selfish learning hack.
   Insist on interpreting trends, not worshiping thresholds. The goal is insight, not surveillance.
   Senior engineers who say “I don’t know” aren’t showing weakness - they’re creating permission.

So glad I’m not the only one that noticed that.

There’s some really solid insights here, but the editing with AI to try to make up for an imperfect essay just makes the points they’re trying to convey less effective.

The lines between what is the author’s ideas and what is AI trying to finish a half or even mostly baked idea just removes so much of the credibility.

And it’s completely counter to the “clarity vs cleverness” idea and the just get something out there instead of trying to get it perfect.

It's just so disrespectful. I put my time in reading this. You (author) couldn't put some time into reading this once over before publishing?

The points are generally good too, which is why the AI slop tone bothers me even more.

Thank you for doing this. It allowed me to skip reading the article altogether immediately knowing it is AI generated slop. Usually I'm a little ways into it before my LLM detector starts going off, but these "This isn't X. It's Y." phrases are such a dead giveaway.