Also, this guy hasn't been educated in hard tech. So by his argument, he has no knowledge of it, as it deviates massively from his education.
Given that he has no knowledge of how it operates, dictating how it is going to operate is extremely likely to be entirely incorrect.
This is another example of "Everyone knows the sun and stars revolve around the earth" type thinking.

I can pretty much believe it..
In the Govenmental areas, there are so many people that are used to being able to say "Yes, but wouldn't it be a great idea if...".. And when they're told no, it's not possible in the current scope, they bring in all kinds of political manoeuvers to make life extremely difficult unless it gets added (and these manoeuvers can extend time drastically). So, more gets added that they should have identified initially. Or it can be a 'clarification'. "Oh, we meant this.. In this context.. Sort of. Until we change our minds."
They aren't used to thinking critically. They aren't used to doing specifications (and they actively resist attempts to perform a full specification gather, as "they don't have time for all those useless questions". They have "things to do,don't you know").
That's when it starts out as a big project.. Some smaller ones can actually start with a well defined set of requirements, and be entirely achievable. They other people hear that there's funding attached to a project, so they want a slice of the pie.. Get themselves on the steering groups, have the "bright ideas that weren't there originally that just _have_ to be put in there now", and move things in an entirely different direction. Or at least pull in it, as there are usually a whole bunch of people pulling in different directions, getting opposing things added to the requirements.

Sometimes you get lucky and find that there's someone with clout who is also technically savvy, and they can stamp on internal rubbish and let a project go properly.. Unfortunately, they're reasonably rare, and the voices that understand the reality of it are drowned out by the higher management that haven't touched tech, don't understand it, don't want to understand it, and believe if they have a bright idea, someone will wave a magic wand and the solution will magically appear.

Think you're confusing the acronym.. DRM in this context is Direct Rendering Manager.

So it's good for the individual. I suspect that for the society as a whole, it wouldn't be good for everyone to have that marker.
So sometimes people get to be more optimistic about things.. Great.. It's nice when I meet people like that, who pull me into their happy world (and yes, I appreciate it).. My own.. Well, I see the world without the niceties. I'm prone to depression. But there again, I get to use it in work, and in life. Out of the larger group, I'm usually the one who adds in the dose of reality when people need the hard advice, or a plan that has the greatest chance of succeeding. I prep them to get through tough times without sugar coating. I pick up on loads of things that people with a brighter mindset miss.
The disadvantage is that I'm not a happy-go-lucky person most of the time.
That's where the strength of real diversity comes in. A mix of mindsets covers all angles, and has a good chance of working more comfortably in the long haul. The group can play to the strengths of the individuals. The problems start when people start decreeing that their viewpoint is the only valid one in all cases. Unfortunately, religion has a lot of that in it. Not a problem for the individual, but perhaps a huge one for those around.

For very basic programming, the core is functional decomposition (breaking things down into manageable components). This is a hearty part of critical thinking, and problem solving.
Having more people familiar with that would help solve a lot of things.

Subtle does not have the biggest effect on a person's view of the world. Obvious does.
Subtle is if I try to get your attention by tapping you on the shoulder gently.
Obvious is if I whack you round the head with a cricket bat to gain your attention.
There are points when subtle does not matter one jot. It's used for delicacy and very minute adjustments (thus, subtle).

Depends on the scale of the data center.
If somewhere has the big bucks to spend on the high end, and shells out the big bucks to get great people, then sure. Core and powershell is the way to go.
However, there are a huge amount of places that still need a gui (hell, external vendors doing installs can be a problem on core, as they usually need GUIs to do config work).
GUI is still useful, though becoming deprecated on a server. Doesn't mean we're there yet.
But nothing needs metro on the server desktop. That's adding cruft to an established utility for no gain whatsoever. None. It shouldn't be there.

There are graphics languages starting to appear (like Scratch), which let you build blocks of code up, without really understanding what code is. There's also a shot at converting natural language requests to SQL.
It will be suitable for some thing, but there will be a definite limit. And that's part of what you need to define very early on.
If you're trying to work on something that just needs to work out simple cycles, and get some very basic, and pretty general work done, then sure. You can do that, but your mathematical error bars increase in size for all the parts that you don't consider.
If you just work at a high level, sure.. But the chance for error/misunderstanding creeps in massively, the closer to spoken/natural language, or the closer the program is to a set of building blocks you can add together.
The reason code is textual, is so you can specify, in the language that a computer will understand, exactly what you want it to do. The same as when you're writing a project document that you really want a business to get right, the specification for it is in incredibly dry language (not normally spoken), and absolutely full of technical jargon to do with the subject matter at hand. That's precisely so you remove all ambiguity (or as much as you're capable of anyway).
Any task in life you want to complete well, you need to understand deeply, and in detail. If you're not willing to dive in, and expect things to be very simple, so you can just sit down and do it anytime, tabula rasa, then you'll eternally be stuck at a very amateur level.
That may be all you need, in which case, fine.. Go for it.
But the real code is there for the same reason as formal methods are still used in design (there's no ambiguity).

There's a historical analogy to all this going on: Until the rennaissance, the middle east was vastly more advanced than the West (it had medicine, mathematics and so on that just weren't known in the west until scholars studied there). Arabic was the language of trade, commerce and learning during the centuries of its pre-eminence as a cultural and scholarly center.
People would come from all areas of the 'civilised world' (this didn't really include Europe at this point, apart from maybe Italy) to study.

The problems arose with the ascendancy of a faction (Asharite) which was distinctly anti-rationalist. It gained increasing popularity over the Mutazilite faction (which had led the Islamic world to scientific ascendancy over centuries, epousing the Greek philosophers such as Aristotle and Plato, and following in those traditions).
As the power of the Asharites grew, scientific advancement in the middle east stagnated, and eventually it became a crime to copy philosophical texts, as they were an abhorrence in the eyes of God. These sins would eventually be punishable by executions, and the candle of scientific advancement was effectively snuffed out.

Compare this to today. From England grew a large empire (comparable effectively with the Islamic Caliphate) crossing many countries, and being quite the center of learning. People came from all over to study in England. This Empire has been largely disbanded, but the strings of learning have still carried on beyond it.
Over the last hundred years or so, the power and center of effective empire has shifted to America as the rationalist factions invested in learning, keeping church and state separate (as the founders would probably have been painfully aware of the problems of allowing them to merge), and ensuring minds could be kept open, and difficult questions asked.

However, there's now a growing push towards anti-rationalism. It hides itself within the main power structure, and has permeated the political strata to a huge extent (I believe the parts of the national pledge that mention god were only included in the 50s or 60s, never having been present before then), and seems to be getting ever more powerful. Parts of the population (and I've met them on travels) consider it taboo to "Trust science" as it's all God's Will. Exactly analogous to the Asharite faction of a thousand years ago.
We know what happens if that faction gains ascendancy. Scientific tradition fails, as being an intellectual makes you a threat to the religious theocrats, and they're very good at getting rid of threats, and making it 'acceptable', even desirable that these people are removed.
Arabic ceased to be the language of trade and learning once the Asharites gained ascendancy and the Islamic world was in their grip. They were overtaken by the West, which had learned from their teaching earlier, and took on the torch passed to them by the Greeks even earlier.

Nowadays, China is investing massively in education, and particularly science; their technological base has caught up with the Western World at a furious pace. This, quite possibly, is a saving grace; it means that there are definitely alternatives to keep learning alive, just in case the anti-rationalists that are gaining traction in America manage to topple it from within. It would likely mean that the language of trade and learning becomes Chinese, but hey, the world can survive that quite easily.
I guess we see if history does indeed repeat itself, or whether humanity, as a species, has got any brighter since the last time this rise and fall happened.

Well, the most blatant occurrence of racism I've come across in recent years was in a council meeting in Bristol, UK... An Asian councillor was told in open session that she was "a coconut" (meaning brown on the outside, but white on the inside). This was applied in a very derogatory context. This was said on the record by another councillor.. You'd think they'd be reprimanded at the very least but no.. Entirely swept under the carpet, until the recipient of the slur called for an investigation into why a blatantly show of racism wasn't handled.
When questioned in the investigation why the offending councillor had made a racist comment on the record, she replied "I can't be racist, because I'm black.".
This does kind of point out what gets many people riled up; if you have a non-white skin, then it's strongly implied by many that the only part of racism they play a part in is as a victim, never as an attacker. This is blatantly untrue; whatever colour of skin you have, you're human, and that carries (in most, if not all cases), a bias towards the similar that's been wired into us over thousands (if not millions) of years. We're growing up as a species and overcoming that now, but it's entirely pointless to believe racism isn't universal. It is.

The point of all this though us that the original tweet was plain stupid (the implication that she couldn't get AIDS in Africa because she was white). Factually wrong, which makes her look stupid, and I. Pretty poor taste. The kind of thing that you can look at and say "you tit". Then you get in with life, and deal with real issues.

However, this mob frenzy every time there's even a whiff of the word "racism" or similar is what the author of the article is calling out as being thuggish and oppressive, and distinctly worrying.

There is no "right to be a bit of a dick", and when we are (face it, everyone is a dick sometimes; you, me, and everyone we know). Mostly, it's a momentary lapse in judgement, or an overreaction when we're emotionally slightly compromised..
However, it takes a monumentally idiotic, callous and narrow minded person to bay for blood and hound them out of a job, threaten them, harrass them and so on; all responses which seem "politically acceptable" these days.

That tacit acceptance of gross overreaction is just plain scary. It's the same conditioned reflex you see in religious zealots calling holy war because someone dared draw a picture of their prophet, or take the name of their deity in vain, or believe that science is wrong because it says something different to their couple of thousand year old holy writings.

This kind of behaviour is way beyond being a bit of a dick, and puts you squarely in the "scary wack job" category. The one that people get nervous around when they pick up the cutlery.

It's not about "defending racism" or such, it's about admitting we all have a lot of growing up to do.. Especially collectively as a species.

Do note that the stress here that the GP was focussing on was the repeat offenders, who had known mental issues and "excuses" were made to try and ameliorate the sentence as they had "diminished responsibility" in form or another, as if that suddenly made it alright.
Clue; it doesn't make it alright.
It used to be (in the bad old days) that if you were said to be guilty (on easily trumped or minor charges), you were in a whole world of serious pain, and your survival could be uncertain.
These days, people readily leap to make excuses for the behaviour, and the rights of the offenders are treated as sacrosanct (despite the fact that the offenders will readily trample someone else's rights if and when it suits them without any thought at all), and they're treated with kid gloves.
When a psychological problem is identified as the root cause, why not protect society, and give someone room to recover from trauma in a safe, supportive environment until they're ready.. And come down hard on those that are just nasty scrotes by choice?

Depression _is_ an emotional problem.

When your bad user UI gets in the way of effective clinical care, you'll soon kinda realise that your customers are the ones who pay the bills.
If you get to streamline (correctly and safely) the job of the clinicians, you save hospitals money, and save lives both at the same time.
The patient is the client of the clinicians, not you. Your job is to enhance the clinicians' effectiveness, helping save lives that would otherwise be lost.

Then a really useful way of doing this would be to set a default of the last height, and ask the user on entry (on a clinically agreed, configurable in database, timespan if they are sure they'd like to continue entry without re-taking height as it may be clinically useful) as a simple 'OK or Add Entry' dialog box.
Bingo, you've found a way to enhance the clinical operation of the app. Or think of something better than my purely off the top of my head idea.

No idea how you managed to get a -1 for that.. It's the reason I didn't move to the US long ago (the balance between the worker and employer is screwed, and it's only become worse as time has progressed).. It does seem as though some corporates really are trying to set up an environment that is very close to indentured servitude. Natural citizens still have legal privileges that trump the desires of the corporates for cheap labour, so they want to import.
That, really, is a crappy way to do business. It'll work in a short term, but ends up as a race to the bottom, and probable collapse far earlier than necessary (wasting a lot of long term productivity and profit).