In a way that just makes it even worse. Because a newbie that lands in a situation like that might be excused, a former team member isolating himself from his own responsibility by asking his computer who he should fire is an even bigger insult than if he came in as an outsider.

This company is dysfunctional. They have a CTO that doesn't report to the CEO but where the CEO will cross their lines of command to give direct orders to the CTO anyway, they treat their employees like they treat their docker images (like cattle, instead of like pets), they promote people internally and make their first marching orders to take the axe to the org chart, specifically the team from which they got promoted out of.

This won't end well.

I was only pointing out the context and that the first sentence is a rather obvious tell that it is part two of a series and should not be interpreted literally.

I have a pretty simple rule for evaluating articles: if not indicated otherwise I assume they stand on their own and that the article writer means what they say. It's on them to communicate any circumstances that are required to be able to read the article, at a minimum a link should be provided to such context if it is available.

Just read this thread and see how many people are wrong-footed by the article.

> It's on them

Honestly, i think your reaction to having an assumption collapse is rather terrible

Why is everyone talking about the computer like it has it's own agency and inhuman agenda?

The computer in this story was nothing but a human's pencil and paper.