No but it is their job to understand it, otherwise you’re not contributing anything valuable, you’re stirring up drama. If I point to a light switch and call out it’s a problem that does you no good unless I tell you why, and why it’s like that in the first place.
The problem with the article is even though it’s right it makes no attempt to explain why, and blames bad people for the problems instead of understanding why they might be acting like they are.
No, it isn't their job to understand the problem before pointing it out either. That also does not stand up to scrutiny in the slightest.
If I call my township to report a big pothole, I am not required to submit an explanation of how the pothole came to be. This is a ludicrous standard only deployed when situationally convenient for someone, not an actual principle.
Again, the value of a problem report without an understanding may be less than one that has it, but there is no obligation to have an understanding or present one in order to talk about a problem at all.
>No but it is their job to understand it, otherwise you’re not contributing anything valuable, you’re stirring up drama
Frankly, this sounds exactly like toxic management where people are not allowed to raise issues which then blames everybody but themselves for consequential infectivity.
> If I point to a light switch and call out it’s a problem that does you no good unless I tell you why, and why it’s like that in the first place.
I I point to a light switch and say that it does not work, I do not need to be able to fix it by myself. For that matter, it is good example, because we are not even allowed to fix electric devices by ourself (workplace safety).
Taking the bare minimum of time to understand a problem before complaining about it isn’t toxic, it’s human decency that respects other people’s time. If I called out every problem with all the code I work with no one would ever get anything done, because everything is tradeoffs.
I don’t think you’re saying that you couldn’t explain why the light not working is a problem. No one said you have to know how to fix it.
Except that, demanding that people have solution, which is what parent did and "taking the bare minimum of time to understand a problem" are two massively different standards. The original article definitely clears the "taking bare minimum time to understand a problem" standard. Neither parent nor you are content.
> If I called out every problem with all the code I work with no one would ever get anything done, because everything is tradeoffs.
Obvious difference is that article did not complained about trivial issues. It complained about very real issues that waste massive amount of time.
> I don’t think you’re saying that you couldn’t explain why the light not working is a problem.
Adding "I do not see without light" is completely unnecessary when complaining about broken switch. There is zero need for it. Similarly, it is no mystery why issues in article are problems.
If you are unclear about why any of listed issues is a problem or disagree, you could have made that claim. But, neither parent nor you claimed not understanding that. All you want is to prevent people from talking about these issues.
I never said the article should have solutions, or that the issues in the article are not problems, or that they shouldn’t be talked about. If you want to assign a point of view to me that I don’t believe then this is a pointless discussion.
The problem with the article is even though it’s right it makes no attempt to explain why, and blames bad people for the problems instead of understanding why they might be acting like they are.