There is nothing wrong with that, but careers under capitalism are about _signaling value_. I hope you find a place (or have found a place) where you're appreciated. :)
As far as your career - salary and promotions and recognition - you can't just sit in a corner and be quiet. People have to recognize that you're good at what you do and it's hard for others to see when you only communicate in code check-ins.
You have to start attending meetings, speaking at meetings, and being useful beyond the code.
I'm not sure why you're being downvoted but some of the best career advice I've heard is someone saying you should assume when you go to work that you're working under a communist dictatorship. I.E. Toe the party line, make your boss look good, (pretend to) eat up the company propaganda, assume the leader(s) (C-suite) will do whatever they want, when they want, especially giving themselves bonuses regardless of company performance.
It's a weird contrast to normal life, considering a lot of us live in democracies, but once I understood this and started acting accordingly, it helped me handle my work life.
I don't know if that's great advice, but its certainly advice that will help get you promotions and salary bumps.
Like anything there's a grey zone here. Understanding the political realities of a business is highly beneficial and will help you move forward with the company and let you know when to pick your battles. But I've watched people who do nothing but this lose the trust of those at their level. And that trust is crucial for agile development. I also personally feel like pushing back on the company when appropriate can indeed provide a lot of value to the organization. "Why are we doing this meeting?" "We need another week for testing" "I'd like to see the roadmap you are planning". Just don't push back all the time.
It is probably good advise for most cases but individually depends on the shop and culture. Like if you really should always wear a three piece suit to interviews regardless of what they request. Some are flatter, others are more hierarchical (ironically practice can fail to line up with org chart structures).
Some are all about the politics, others don't have the luxury of self delusion or actually value the sort of brutal honesty to say "I have looked at the new framework - while trendy it is buggy inefficient crap." The ones who lack the luxury tend to be smaller but small size is no guarantee that they'll just say no to the flavor aid.
In all areas of life we judge those around us not by the true facts, but on our limited knowledge. Working to improve that knowledge can result in a change in judgment. It seems completely reasonable for there to be a person who does good work but who isn't know for doing such, and as such is viewed worse than they should be. By working to increase the knowledge of the work they do, their evaluation in the eyes of others will improve.
Of course, it isn't a straight forward or simple in practice. There are those who lie and misrepresent, and if you are to obvious about your intent you will be viewed as manipulative.
I don't see why this deserves either the label of BS or a ban from HN?
Perhaps some thing think it's uncomfortably close to the 'slur' of 'virtue signalling' that people throw around. While I'm sure the intention was nothing but pure in how it was used here, it did make bit second-read the comment to assess whether it was being used in a negative way, and to really understand the point being put across.
