Apologies. I overstated. How about "I study a lot of stuff"
And now the reply, if I've accurately modeled it, is "So you've studied a lot of stuff, what makes you an expert on any of it?"
Programming at its heart has always been cross-discipline, so there's really no judgment of ability aside from solving problems involving those disciplines you're working for. I find myself with a lack of adjectives that will keep our conversation short.
Next time if you want to brag without looking like an ass, describe something really impressive you did in detail to illustrate a point using highly understated language. Not only will you not get penalized for bragging, people will give you bonus points for being humble.
Polymath > A polymath is an individual whose knowledge spans a substantial number of subjects, known to draw on complex bodies of knowledge to solve specific problems.
If that's who you are, there's no shame in identifying as so. Don't let hacker news comments gatekeep you.
(“Force me to write code” suggests that we’re looking to think deeply about what we’re doing and trying to minimize unnecessary action, so the rote actions are bad.)
The main one in regards to John's tweet is this: desired behavior has to "force" out code and architecture. Typically teams and individual developers carry a lot of presumptions and assumptions into their solution space. They probably pick this kind of thing up from reading HN, Twitter, and the like. We all do this.
It's these "things you do but don't really think about" that are so pernicious in technology development. Guess what? Looks like AI is going to master that kind of thing since with each social media post we continue to train it on "How things are usually done"
By taking an extreme "force me to write code" approach, you end up developing a wide range of skills: DevSecOps, analysis, database design, and so on. In fact, you don't really know what you're going to develop when you start working on it.
That's the point. That's the job. Always has been.