My interpretation is that as engineers, we attempt to justify all of our choices through purely rational means. However, as humans, we cannot really make said choices without also being at least somewhat influenced by our subjective affections.

Perhaps I'm stretching the author's message, but at least I believe that the argument extends to all engineering conclusions. The author's call is that we acknowledge this subjective side.

Essentially, true engineering is about tradeoffs, there is no X that is objectively better than Y in all circumstances and contexts.

> The author's call is that we acknowledge this subjective side.

I think that acknowledging the subjective side is a necessary step to making more rational choices. If you don't know your motivations, you will be a motivated reasoner.

When you can add "I like this tech because it helps me build an identity I aspire to" as an item in the pros column, you realize you no longer have to.

> When you can add "I like this tech because it helps me build an identity I aspire to" as an item in the pros column, you realize you no longer have to.

But, for many of the cases of using-obscure-thing-instead-of-popular-thing, that's not a factor.

Not everything divergent is hipster impulse. Nor is everything about slotting yourself into a clique category in high school.

Which is why I asked for clarification on what was being said.

FWIW, I use a vintage ThinkPad mainly because I can type all day on it without problem. The serviceability is also nice. I also own a sleek high-end last-year's P1 and an X1, both of which I think would look more attractive in cafes and in some ways fit my ideal self-image better than the T520 that I choose to use instead. Currently, due to the inferior keyboards, I might use the P1 or X1 only if I need to do a startup meeting with a 20-something who doesn't already know I'm good despite being over-30. That choice would be the image one, and it's not about validation or aspirational identity, but pragmatic gaining of acceptance despite prejudice.

Nine times out of ten, popular thing is going to be objectively better than obscure thing, because it's much easier to find people who know, and tools that work with, popular thing. All other things being equal, the person who launches a startup based on Go or JavaScript is going to have an easier time than the person who launches one based on Common Lisp or Haskell -- unless they do all the coding themself.

If you have some objective, measurable reason for choosing obscure thing over popular thing, by all means -- tell us why. But show receipts. Actual numbers and measurements.

Otherwise, it's all vibes.

I'm describing the set of posts that jointly satisfy:

- The thesis is "tool X is superior to (Y, Z, ...)" or "X is a modern/practical choice".

- The argument is purported to be technical and rational.

- The arguments are fallacious and do not stand to rational scrutiny.

Where you can reasonably think that the author's actual reasons are affective, and they are trying to make rational arguments by backward-chaining from the conclusion and failing.

If an article is (jointly) written in green font, uses the word "the", and is fallacious and does not stand to rational scrutiny; that article is fallacious and does not stand to rational scrutiny.