Sure, but assuming he is such a person, you are implying that this minimal understanding of the software life cycle is better for engineers at his company than integrity and a desire to see engineers justly rewarded for their efforts. I doubt that.
you are implying that this minimal understanding of the software life cycle is better for engineers at his company than integrity and a desire to see engineers justly rewarded for their efforts.
I implied no such thing. I'm making a generalization. Your statements so far consist of "Yes, but what if he's an irredeemable sociopath? It's better to have a non-sociopath who doesn't understand software than a sociopath who does." I agree with that, but those aren't the only two options on the table and I refuse to believe the worst in somebody I've never met and only know through an anecdote in a hacker news comment.
Neither of us are making judgements about an actual named person here. We are talking about an example that was given. This stance of 'I refuse to believe the worst in someone based on anecdote' is disingenuous.
That example included a detailed description of the ways the person achieved advancement, which fit the characterization I gave.
It sounds like he avoided responsibility for anything that might have carried risk
That directly contradicts the description GFisher gave, which was "he didn't shirk "hard" projects per se, but he'd only take them if they were very high visibility". You can't take projects without assuming responsibility and you can only say they carried no risk unless you assume that any and all high visibility tasks were low to no risk. I can speak from experience and say that's very much not true.
It sounds like you've projected onto him your disdain for people that move up ladders instead of make things. And you don't even realize it.
Nope - you have quoted out of context, deliberately ignoring: "He was a bit of a douche, mostly by shirking low-visibility projects and getting disproportionate amounts of credit..."
Which has nothing to do with assuming or not assuming responsibility. This is known as moving goalposts.
You'll notice I've said absolutely nothing about whether or not he assumed disproportionate amounts of credit. That kind of thing is murky at best. How do you measure credit? Is it something your boss gives you because he likes you or is it something you actively vie for? In some cases it can be one, some the other but in most cases it's a little of both.
You still haven't admitted even a little bias, despite being shown your quite obvious bias in at least one context.
You said nothing about whether he assumed disproportionate amounts of credit, but you didn't have to because that is a given since it was stated by the original poster. Now you are trying to discredit that part of the description by saying it is hard to judge. May I remind you that we are discussing an example presented by someone else. If you choose to selectively discredit parts of the given description to suit your position, we are no longer discussing the same example. Perhaps you believe that nobody ever assumes more credit than they deserve.
I admit that I am biased against people who assume disproportionate amounts of credit as CEO. I think that is a highly undesirable trait in any kind of manager.
