First off, I don't know you and I'm not accusing you of anything. But the document you wrote says what it says, and I'm standing by what I wrote.

“Only release every two weeks.”

No. Nowhere did I say that. In fact, the team I wrote this about worked on a 1 week sprint.

OK, cool. Make it "only release once per week" then; it doesn't change my point: The article defines "sprints" as a deployment schedule. What kind of software are we talking about here? A website or similar provided "as a service" over the internet? Then why stick to a rigid one or two week release cycle? Or a traditional "run locally" application? Then weekly updates are much too frequent, I'd say.

(I did note the date on the post, but it didn't strike me as relevant. My first contact with "agile" was in 2013 and our deployments were a manual process (later automated), but we did it without downtime and we never waited until the end of the sprint to release 20 finished tickets at once. In fact, I've never worked at a place that treats sprints as release cycles.)

“This includes bugfixes”

This is true. It’s is primarily because deviating from the commitment you made with the company to have x jobs done by the end of the sprint necessarily means being unable to meet that commitment.

No, I'm not talking about going bug hunting, I'm talking about releasing the (already developed) bug fixes. Again, if we "think of sprints as a deploy schedule", then even bug fixes developed on day one of the sprint still need to sit around for a week or two.

Are we here to get work done, or throw everything out the window to sit around and talk through a 6-person meeting whenever something goes wrong?

Now it's my turn to say "nowhere did I say that": When I mentioned root cause analysis and working on underlying issues, I meant actually doing that, not having a 6-person meeting. (Why would I ever hold a meeting?)

Consider the following analogy: On day one of the sprint, someone trips over a power cable, twists their ankle, and takes out a server. By the rules set out in the article, we would plug the server back in and apply pillows and ice packs to the ankle (i.e. fixing the immediate issues). But the rules wouldn't let us ask who ran a power cable through the middle of a room, or move the power cable out of the way, or find a different power source for the server. We would have to wait one or two weeks for the next sprint to start and until then just live with the tripping hazard. (And in software there can be many "tripping hazards", particularly when a team has undocumented, organically grown, manual processes.)

“If it can’t be done in 4 hours, it can’t be done at all.”

That’s a gross misrepresentation. What I said was that a job must be limited to roughly 4 hours of work. If that job is going to be more, then you should break it up to allow the work to be spread around.

That's the same thing I said. Tasks that can't be broken up into less-than-four-hour units of work can't be done. How is that a misrepresentation?

“Don’t document things.”

I didn’t say that.

"[...] developers have only 3 responsibilities over and above writing code throughout the sprint. [daily stand-up, sprint retrospective/planning, figuring out WTF the client wants] Note what isn't in that list: [...] Documentation"

And no, this isn't about commenting code. The article explicitly calls things like wiki documentation an "exercise in futility". Later on, the "Documentation" section explains how to transfer knowledge to new developers: Have them work on various "components" and let them figure it out themselves (i.e. reverse-engineer the code). Knowledge only exists in people's heads: "[...] if Daniel gets hit by a bus, the project can go on because Aileen, Charlie, and Aisha have all spent some time poking at the payment engine." Written documentation isn't even considered as a possibility.

“The job of a software developer is to crank out code and nothing else, especially not design, testing, or documentation”

It should not be a surprise that one would expect software developers to develop software. If you want design, you hire a designer.

OK, let me just quickly hire a network protocol designer, data structure designer, algorithm designer, API designer, and software architecture designer. Sure, some people would consider that to be part of software development, but not you, apparently: You're doubling down on the "software development = cranking out code" thing.

Now, I haven't been doing this for 27 years, but some places where I worked defined software development much more broadly: Programming, QA/testing, UX and UI design, user studies, requirements gathering, internal and external documentation, it all fell under the "software development" umbrella.

Testing is part of the process though, and I never said otherwise.

You did: "developers have only 3 responsibilities over and above writing code throughout the sprint" and none of them is testing.

“Don’t even think about ethics.”

FUCK THIS. Don’t you dare suggest to me that I wouldn’t demand ethics of everyone I work with.

"[...] developers have only 3 responsibilities over and above writing code throughout the sprint" and none of them is thinking about ethics.

Engineers have a responsibility to do right by the world they live in, and nothing I’ve mentioned in that post would suggest otherwise.

I suggest re-reading the "Talk Less, Code More" section. (You could also call it "Think Less, Code More".) It emphasizes the smooth flow of simple tasks to be coded up, piece by piece, from "todo" to "finished" with a minimum of hassle. Where in that process is there room for friction in the form of thinking about (let alone questioning) the bigger picture?