>I do not agree with it because it underlines the dogma about how little craft quality means as long as someone finds it useful.
YMMV vastly based on industry (or in the lens of this post, the demands and requirements on the user end to satisfy). For media, it's fine; very few users are going to suffer over a few minor bugs or an unoptimal system. For aerospace, it's fatal thinking for obvious reasons (with sadly, many real world examples to point to). Both are valid career aspects and both provide value.
>it's simply too shallow a mindset for being a professional software engineer.
sounds like you fall under "the right thing", as the author calls it. A sadly dying aspect as elephants and late stage capitalism (again, as the author named them) run wild.
But I argue more that this is just fine for an engineer. You're thinking more like a professional computer scientist. scientists observe and model the nature around them. Engineers apply them, while taking into account the imperfections of nature and yes, humans. In my eyes, an engineer that can't adjust to the needs of the product (be it for biz, users, or someone that is not them) isn't an engineer, but a scientist. Or a craftman, as you deferred to ealier.
Again, not a slight nor compliment, just different roles with different philosophies.