The person who runs that site is top notch at creating interesting or controversial headlines, but usually delivers a rant at best or--in this case--nothing at all. As best I can follow, this article's outline is this:
1. He met a presumably incompetent coder before the first bubble, who was possibly arrogant.
2. He previously complained about a incompetent coder in South America.
3. He has also met a competent coder in South America.
4. That competent coder may or may not have horses, but he definitely might have them, and he probably has a nice house as well.
5. He's pretty sure that people like the guy who is competent.
6. Wages don't correlate with quality.
I guess what gets me about his articles, is they are usually about something I'd like to know more about, and he presents this veneer of of authority, but always skims over the point of his argument where one might reasonably expect him to defend his position beyond simply stating it as a solemn truth.
"... I guess what gets me about his articles, is they are usually about something I'd like to know more about, and he presents this veneer of of authority, but always skims over the point of his argument where one might reasonably expect him to defend his position beyond simply stating it as a solemn truth. ..."
The question I keep thinking of is why? He is the founding editor of GameDev and Software developer mags. So you would assume he has some idea of writing. I'll keep that in mind next time I (think) of posting one.
1. He met a presumably incompetent coder before the first bubble, who was possibly arrogant. 2. He previously complained about a incompetent coder in South America. 3. He has also met a competent coder in South America. 4. That competent coder may or may not have horses, but he definitely might have them, and he probably has a nice house as well. 5. He's pretty sure that people like the guy who is competent. 6. Wages don't correlate with quality.
I guess what gets me about his articles, is they are usually about something I'd like to know more about, and he presents this veneer of of authority, but always skims over the point of his argument where one might reasonably expect him to defend his position beyond simply stating it as a solemn truth.