I agree it's a weird API. Not sure where it comes from, maybe some '70s thing with reading blocks?
However, this functions as a red flag for the article itself, as in: in an article dismissing something with very little nuance, finding one of the arguments exhibit a lack of good understanding of that thing raises an interrupt for me that its other arguments may also be flawed.
The article overall just rubs me as hubris. If you go about dismissing decades of engineering history, you better get your facts right. It's easy to write things like this when you're at the wrong end of the Dunning-Kruger bathtub, so you have to show you are in fact at the right end of it. (While in the middle, people tend to not write articles like this in my experience.)
However, this functions as a red flag for the article itself, as in: in an article dismissing something with very little nuance, finding one of the arguments exhibit a lack of good understanding of that thing raises an interrupt for me that its other arguments may also be flawed.
The article overall just rubs me as hubris. If you go about dismissing decades of engineering history, you better get your facts right. It's easy to write things like this when you're at the wrong end of the Dunning-Kruger bathtub, so you have to show you are in fact at the right end of it. (While in the middle, people tend to not write articles like this in my experience.)