I couldn’t decide whether they had a valid point or whether they were engaging in some form of parody. Seems like an extreme case of Poe’s Law.

I think that if you filter-out the exaggerations in the article, the general message is still worth to reflect on. Some process doesn't get more efficient just by virtue of using a computer, and many tools we have now are more about good-looking interfaces than actual productivity.

Sure, every fable has a grain of truth, but constantcrying put it more usefully here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40264453

The OP is not worth reading unless you desperately miss the "ironic" invective laden writing of the early 00's.

Not only that, but a lot of the efficiency gains are directed towards tasks that, otherwise, would not be done because it wasn’t worth the cost. Now that the cost is low enough, their marginal gains absorb the resources that’s be freed by automation.

That’s the origin of so-called “bullshit jobs”.

This.

He states, in his about[0]: "...exposing this sort of nonsense to as much popular contempt as I can muster."

It's deliberate.

I sometimes enjoy folks that write like this, and this chap genuinely seems to be an interesting guy, after my own heart, but I don't really enjoy his writing.

[0] https://scottlocklin.wordpress.com/about/