[aleph_minus_one]

> It is important to recognize that even if knowledge becomes untrue because some assumption or fundamental has changed, knowing the history of these changes and why they occurred is still extraordinarily valuable knowledge. [...] I think this sense of history is one of the most important aspects of "experience" when hiring.

I can tell you that in my experience employers do not value this kind of knowledge a lot. Quite the opposite: quite some employers hate such employees who ask "too many inconvenient questions" instead of surfing the hype of the "current/next big thing".

[dartos]

While you’re not wrong, just bc employers don’t care about it during interviews doesn’t mean it’s not important.

In my experience, startups with inexperienced technical leadership tend to be the “next big thing” (as far as tech stacks go) focused types of places.

[rightbyte]

I think that is an orthogonal issue.

That is more or less about virtue signalling that you are a "team player" that helps your boss advance his career rather than doing what nominally is your job. Think teenage clothing fashion. You need to show you are in.

Pretending that complex and risky solutions are needed is a key property of this. The boss need headcounts for the complex fancy project.

And so on, with different companies being in different circles of hell on the matter.

Good solutions usually look simple and easy in my experience. Downplaying the skill in doing them.

The author however seems to write about machine learning, which honestly is a really fast moving field right now. Sometimes things just move fast?

[JohnFen]

In a sense, though, that doesn't matter. I mean, it would be nice, but it's not material. That knowledge is of value to the devs directly because it makes them better devs. That is something employers do actually value.