I have. Can you help me understand what is the issue with my comment? Can we not agree that not being able to know where to even start with studying and changing a binary is foundational to being a software engineer?
As a native english speaker, your comment came across as an unnecessary slight. It might not have been the intent.
Not everyone has had the same experiences, interests, or life/work opportunities in the same way, and this person seems genuinely interested in learning more. It's something to be encouraged.
I don't think pandering to the ideas that basically amount to "a 6 week bootcamp makes you a Software Engineer" is honest or useful. It is sycophancy and disingenuous. If someone doesn't even know where to start looking for replacing a binary in a package; they have no grounds to call themselves a "Software Engineer".
Consider how would you respond if someone made a remark like this:
> Honestly, I'm always blown away by accounts [of] "so I just welded the pipes" dropped casually like this. I'm a plumber and have been for over five years, but wouldn't even know where to _begin_ with something like that.
I'd raise an eyebrow, because plumbers here are a trade with on the job training, and pipework is an essential part of it.
Software has a huge surface area these days. That a trained software engineer isn't aware that HIDs and input subsystems are often highly hackable from userspace is no surprise to me.
They may also have been leaning into a compliment of OP in a self deprecating way.
The problem isn't that you should know everything, but that you should know how to dig into these things. The op isn't even talking about HID and input subsystem, they're talking about replacing a goddamn binary in a package. It is a tiny step above working a Zip archive.
C'mon. Don't shrug me now after going all proverbial pointy finger at me for expecting an "Engineer" to know the basics.
Saying that "a software engineer requires a baseline of understanding of software engineering" is substantive and anything short of that is not "thoughtful" or "kind" but rather disingenuous and sycophantic. Pretend nice is poison feed with delicious juice in fine china, looks good, might be delicious, but still hurts you in the long run.
My comment might have been different if you had said "a software engineer requires a baseline of understanding of software engineering", but that is not what you said.
What you said is "It is because you're unlikely a software engineer and just a learn programming or went through a really bad university.".
Saying he is unlikely a software engineer seems to imply OP is not being truthful, or is outright lying.
I'll take you at your word that it was not your intention to be offensive. If I were communicating in a language that is not my native tongue, I would hope that someone would point out to me that I might be being misunderstood, too.
As far as the wording of the rules, you would have to complain to HN about that if you take issue with it.
Op is making a claim about being a software engineer without having the necessary baseline of skills discussed. I have proposed two possible reasons, self-thought programmer who didn't get to the bottom of things, or just went through a really poor university.
You're making a whole lot of assumptions there without being " thoughtful and substantive". So I invite you to a bit of self-reflection and let this conversation be.
