The title seems a bit misleading. I thought they were talking about LSD or psilocybin. But this is referring to an MDMA-based therapy which I feel is more of a stimulant, or at least is used as one more often than it's used as a psychedelic and it's an amphetamine.
It's astonishing. I had a hard time wrapping my head around this...he is quite literally being REWARDED for failure. I knew the world wasn't fair, but wow.
Interesting, but I'm not a huge fan of this article. The best I was able to surmise was that the SEC may do something in some cases where cryptocurrencies are treated like securities but I wasn't able to garner any information on what the deal with Dogecoin is right now nor what has been done or may be done against Musk in particular in relation to Dogecoin.
This is so based. Now I don't know anything anymore is the author Derek Sivers from California who now lives in New Zealand even real. Is anything on his about page even true? How are we supposed to trust it? Then again, it doesn't matter.
But I think that's what truly makes it "engineering." Programming and solving problems are fun in a vacuum but tech is just a lot more than that. Being able to produce a solution to a problem today doesn't mean that the same solution will work tomorrow. That's why we have to _engineer_ a solution, not just produce one.
I'd argue this is true of any engineering discipline. For example consider this analogy: we build bridges to solve the problem of being unable to cross to the other side. But we could also solve this with, say, a boat, to paddle ourselves across the body of water instead; in fact, that's a much more immediate solution that solves the exact same problem. But is it sustainable? Is it scalable? Can it handle traffic? To address these concerns, we _engineer_ a bridge.
Software that's meant to service a lot of people can't just be written to solve a particular problem today -- it must be _engineered_ so that it's future-proof, which is to say, easy to scale, easy to read, easy to refactor, etc. So often the simplest programming challenges become particularly difficult and often interesting engineering challenges.
Finally, to actually answer your question, it entirely depends on the company, the size of the team, and the commitment to code quality and engineering that that team has. Working at Google on the search team, for example, wouldn't be a great fit for you because every line of code you write has to be engineered! But working at a startup might.
But this comes with tradeoffs. Often times, the solution you write will have to be rewritten if you want your product to succeed. Refactoring and re-architecting things are a necessary evil as technology, hardware, and languages + frameworks change over time. I've worked at places where I've found myself repeatedly having to work on the same things over and over again because of how poorly engineered they are! If you enjoy programming and solving new problems and you want to have a career doing that where presumably you're building some sort of product, you have to engineer at least somewhat reasonable solutions today so that you can work on something new, exciting, and cool tomorrow.