My argument isn't about the article's main content, it's about its attempt to back up its arguments by listing certifications, but failing to do so because the certifications are meaningless.
This is the internet. We tl;dr on little details like these all the time. My assumption is: "if the article's author thinks that these certifications give this person authority about what he's saying, then the author must not know what (s)he's talking about".
Basically, it feels to me like the article says something comparable to "XML sucks because John Johnson, who studied Python programming for five days, said so". How am I a "reverse snob" for pointing that out?
I learnt a lot during my 2-day CSM training. But nothing that makes me more qualified than you or my mom to say something about forgotten software engineering knowledge.
This was the first thing I thought after reading that too. It immediately causes me to assume that the author doesn't know enough about programming to know much at all about its once and future skills.
This is the internet. We tl;dr on little details like these all the time. My assumption is: "if the article's author thinks that these certifications give this person authority about what he's saying, then the author must not know what (s)he's talking about".
Basically, it feels to me like the article says something comparable to "XML sucks because John Johnson, who studied Python programming for five days, said so". How am I a "reverse snob" for pointing that out?
I learnt a lot during my 2-day CSM training. But nothing that makes me more qualified than you or my mom to say something about forgotten software engineering knowledge.