Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you're reading the connotation into this. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with being a higher level engineer. There's plenty of work "above the fold" so to speak. For example, I think it behooves every software engineer to have a general grasp of how CPUs work, what speculative execution is, how CPU caching and invalidation works, etc, but the average webdev doesn't really need to know this, and might r…
> I think you're reading the connotation into this. I am reading the connotation into this and asking about it. 4 paragraphs of talking only about tech and then it diverged into a personal statement at the end.
I guess to engage with this a bit more, one reason you might find a negative connotation towards engineers who are ignorant of the underlying details is that it is the larger set. After all, most engineers do not need to understand the physical layer in depth, so there are fewer who do. People love to feel like they're part of a smaller "higher" class, for complex social reasons. This sometimes comes with a bit of a distaste towards those who are part of the "regular" class.
But overall, I think you're taking this further than it really needs to be taken. The GP was just saying that not all network engineers are wizards in the technical details of lower layers, just like not all software engineers can write a compiler. Does that make them "worse" in some way? Well it makes them a worse fit for that few specific jobs that require that extra knowledge, but in general, I don't think so, and I doubt most people do either.
That's why we have abstractions.