In my reading of the article, I did not get the impression that the author is opposed to the specific, discrete components of the job that he found "lame".
If the demands of the article are truly impossible (socially and/or economically), then I believe that is the *point*, not a criticism of this post.
I want to be very clear: There's nothing wrong with that path. There's nothing wrong with wanting to employ people who follow that path. But making it clear from the outset that he's not going to be a match for you specifically is likely a feature, not a bug.
Having just re-read Daniel Goleman’s book on emotional intelligence recently, one important aspect to high EQ individuals is having the ability to motivate themselves to do work that may be necessary, but not necessarily glamorous or fun.
For example, ANY shop, of ANY size, is going to have issues with tricky-but-hard-to-reproduce bugs. The parent comment is highlighting the fact that they can't be sure if this sort of prima donna is going to be willing to run that issue to ground, or if they'll put up a stink about it being "boring".
Additionally, even if this person were working for free, there's a definite cost to foisting difficult bugs on your teammates.
Do you honestly believe only "cogs in a machine" should be / would be interested in fixing that sort of issue?
No but there are many types of people for whom it has no motivational value. Like they'd rather watch paint dry.
And that's their personality not something that can just be worked around.
My point is that if you're signaling from the outset that you want to cherrypick those things then I, as your employer, don't actually know what you will or won't do. I don't know if you'll follow up on tricky-to-reproduce bugs (as an example) because that's "boring".
That's just creating work and uncertainty in dealing with those issues.