A couple observations on reading this (as someone who heavily uses agentic coding at work and is mostly OK with it):

• Maybe I’m weird, but I don’t find “we always plan the implementation and make decisions first, and only then do we write the code” to describe my work style that well. If I don’t know how I want something to look, I will frequently just start writing whatever code comes to mind about that something. Most of the code will suck, and I’ll probably throw much of it away, but I find that it’s often a much more efficient way to get to a design that I like than sitting and debating tradeoffs in the abstract. Me writing the code might be slower than an agent writing the code, but that misses the point of the exercise: me writing the code is a way for me to build my own understanding of the problem.
• The text translation analogy at the beginning is illustrative, I think. A piece of writing has information, but also elements of the author’s wit, humor, tone, their assumptions about us as readers, and the cultural frame they write within. Good writing combines all of those things in an appealing way. At some basic level translation is about translating words correctly, but “correctly” there does a lot of work. It can be very hard to translate a work from one language to another without losing those less obvious characteristics (wit, tone, etc) that make it appealing, especially if you’re translating (e.g.) idioms or slang that don’t have a clear counterpart in your destination language. This is probably familiar to folks who read authors who’ve been translated outside of their native language: the right (or wrong) translator can have a huge impact on what you experience while reading. That’s not a bar we hold for all text (we’ve all seen very poorly translated manuals for cheap consumer electronics that are nonetheless fine because we can figure out what they’re trying to say), and similarly isn’t a bar that holds for all code, but there is some code where the nuances that automatic translation misses are actually important, and where a human touch is useful.

I guess it isn’t that surprising. I bet the developers who write the software included in this distribution would love some of those millions, but being a guy with a brand and opinions is apparently more valuable to the investor class. Consistent with how they think about the workforce at their own companies, anyway.

(I normally read things like this as people paying tribute to the guy running the company getting the money, or wanting to be perceived as in favor of that company’s viewpoints. I don’t understand why anyone would want to pay tribute to DHH. Ignoring the ick, he’s not that important or powerful. There are a lot of SWEs who don’t know who he is, let alone the general public)

There are also enough engineers looking for jobs that companies can be picky and only hire the ones who seem agreeable and inoffensive, which reinforces the dynamic. “Idealistic” folks accumulate employment gaps that they have to explain or which cause AI ATS systems to auto reject their application before a human ever sees it, meanwhile management and hiring panels become increasingly corporate and less tolerant of difference because that’s who gets hired.

I don’t disagree with a lot of the advice here as a practical thing (e.g., having a scrubbed public image online, assuming that someone evaluating your job application will research you), but I also remember a time when you didn’t have to do that to work in the industry. A lot of the smartest, most creative folks in my CS program were also outspoken on (e.g.) privacy or civil rights in ways that could be tied to their real name, and it makes me kind of sad to think that they’d probably have to hide that today if they wanted to get hired as a new grad.