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.