[pifflesnort]

> How does it not reflect well on NPR?

NPR advertises itself as "news & analysis", and in my experience, excels at both. A key component of "analysis" is the rational study, explanation, and discussion around (often complex and nuanced) topics.

There are few topics as complex as that of software engineering, and it also warrants due consideration and analysis.

To see engineers describing their emotive appeals as "how they roll" does not lead me to believe that NPR's hiring in their engineering department is on par with their hiring in the editorial department.

As such, it reflects badly on their engineering department, and there is a strong implication that this is not somewhere that a studious engineer would choose to work.

Contrast with the posts from Netflix on their architecture. Those posts are not unduly formal, but they provide logical, reasoned arguments, sufficient background as to judge their claims and conjecture, and demonstrate not only their own technical and engineering capacity, but their respect for the technical capacity of their reader.

[rhizome]

It's incredibly appropriate that this appeal to manners and social mores would be posted by someone calling themselves, "pifflesnort."

[pifflesnort]

It's an appeal to rational (rather than emotive) discourse, not arbitrary manners or social mores.

[rhizome]

The prioritization of rationality over emotion (such as you use it) is a function of one's social framework, and the history of imposing the trappings of such onto others is pretty much the history of aristocracy.

[pifflesnort]

That's an interesting rhetorical tack, but rationality over emotion is also pretty much the history of science, which is also closely tied with the history of aristocracy.

Fortunately for all involved, we don't need to rope aristocracy or philosophy into the argument to provide some level of understanding of the qualitative nature of engineering, be it physical or digital. Instead, we have algorithms, maths/logic, and real measurements to serve as the bedrock of our field.

Unfortunately, articles such as this one abandon that bedrock in favor of appeals to emotion, which leaves the article (and whatever conclusions it may ostensibly provide) unsupported by fact or logic.

This loosely grounded approach to discussion is perfectly suited when discussing one's television preferences, but provides a net negative value to the world of technical discourse by propagating a culture of unsubstantiated and emotionally driven opinion and pop culture ideals.

[rhizome]

In other words, form over content.

[pifflesnort]

If you're referring to the article, then I'd agree. If you're referring to what I wrote, then I'd necessarily question your reading comprehension.

[marshray]

Oh good grief.