Yes, curricula tend to focus on writing code over reading code, which is a shame. Looking at existing code, extending it, refactoring it, etc would ideally be something that students do as much as writing things from scratch.
Well yes. It all sounds all so easy when you put it like that.
The problem is that, in my experience at least, you can’t just teach junior engineers how to go straight to phase 3. You have to go through phase 1 and 2 to really develop a sense for what makes a solid, streamlined design.
Some never get there - either because they become set in their ways early, or because they work in organizations where the wrong kind of thing is encouraged. Some get there faster - because they’ve worked with mentors or in codebases that accelerated their learning.
But like with any craft, you have to put in the hours and the mistakes.
(Yes, there are John Carmacks in the world who go through all those steps within 18 months when they are 12, but they are 0.0001% of the programming population)
These comments are kind of hilarious when the average software engineer’s wardrobe consists almost entirely of tech company t-shirts/hoodies with giant logos on them :D
This question could be posed better, but it does deserve an answer. "Meat" does not have a precise biological meaning; its meaning is largely cultural. Some people distinguish "red meat" and "white meat"; others understand meat as separate from poultry, and seafood (is fish seafood? same story). In fact, in some languages the word for "meat" is more specific to mammal meat - e.g. french, "viande" vs "volaille" - in others less so: in Japanese, 魚 (fish) is definitely not 肉 (meat) but you eat 牛肉 (cow-meat) and 鳥肉 (bird-meat).
The vocabulary of cooking is full of these sort of things (legumes/vegetables/fruits/...is a tomato a fruit or a vegetable? is a potato a vegetable?)
Read it as a non insane person, found it a little rough around the edges but still a perfectly valid and relevant collection of statements. It's a sad world, one where anything that steps out a little bit of the approved "think here" zone is automatically flag killed.
Reading that paragraph made me cringe, as it's such a basic misunderstanding of Marxism that it's the kind of thing you'd expect to read in a freshman essay written the night before after the student skimmed the first 10 lines of the Wikipedia article for "marxism" in a drunken stupor.
Fortunately the rest of the article is pretty good, and shows that the author has actually read Marx a tiny bit. Which makes the presence of the first paragraph even more confusing.