Why is it cheaper for individuals to install some amount of cheap solar power for themselves than for the grid to install it and then deliver it to them, with economies of scale in the construction and maintenance? Transmission cost?

It's subconscious so it's hard to say but it's clearly not "reading every word in order" and probably doesn't involve reading every word. I think it's a combination of being a fast but not exceptionally fast reader, plus a lot of domain knowledge so I can understand the stuff I am reading as fast as I read it, plus a ton of domain-specific skimming skill / pattern recognition to bring the interesting part to conscious attention.

I learned to program young enough that I don't really remember the process, and I have about 25 years of experience, so I agree with the diagnosis.

I can certainly have a blind spot about logical reasoning related to a program, but I don't recall having a "it says it right there" kind of blind spot.

How does one "read the docs?". Sometimes I ask how a senior dev figured something out, and they say "I read the documentation and it explained it." And I'm like "okay, duh. but... there's so much fucking documentation. I can't possibly be expected to read it all?"

I have a pet hypothesis that there is some skill or ability like this which comprises a huge amount of variation in programming ability. Here is an experience I had many times while working with my professional programmer colleagues:

1. My coworker has a confusing bug and asks me to walk over and take a look at it.
2. They start trying to explain the bug from their perspective while clicking around doing stuff like building the program or paging through the code.
3. While they do that, I am reading everything on their screen while they talk, so then I notice some random thing in their codebase that doesn't make sense to me and point out that thing, which is something they hadn't realized, and that solves the bug.

Alternately:

3. I ask some question about the bug that involves figuring out how something works.
4. They put some search query into Google and it opens up a bunch of search results. They take about three seconds and click one of them that doesn't look very useful to me. I say, "why don't you go look at the sixth result which said it was a forum post from a person wondering the exact same thing?" They just didn't read it.

Alternately:

2. They run the program and it starts producing about half a page of startup log output per second.
3. I interrupt them and say "why did it say X?" They say "where did it say that?" I say "about two pages up in the log." One minute later, they have found the thing in the log that I read while the log was scrolling at half a page per second.

So there is some large difference in reading ability here that seems to be doing a huge amount of work, and I actually have no clue how I would even operate if I didn't have that ability. It seems to me like I would just never know what was going on.

You could say the same for reading for sure. I think mimicry is more reliable. Actions speak louder then words. The only issue is that you often don't have good access to someone successful to mimic for a complex behavior. But if you do have access, then you should mimic them more than you pay attention to what they say or write.

Mimicry is at least A-tier. Every person relies purely on mimicry for the first years of their life to learn the most important behaviors for them in the world. For most skills, at most times, an hour spent trying to mimic an expert is going to pay off more than an hour spent reading or reasoning.

I don't think there's a conflict between the two views. They can both be true simultaneously. Since both sides can produce compelling examples, they both probably are true simultaneously.

Neither is there an obvious conflict between Cummings' and Pahlka's solutions. It's easy to imagine a civil service that is both more accountable to politicians, and also has a better feedback loop to those politicians. In fact, the solutions seem synergistic, because if the civil servants may be fired for under-delivering, they should be more motivated to get problems fixed via the feedback loop.

(Of course there is still a question as to which is the "bigger problem".)

I agree. I think "existential" basically isn't enough common parlance for most people to not just round it off to "big", in the same way that "literally" becomes "very".

This post makes me feel like you have a nail in your head. If you want to relate to other people you may have to accept that it's possible to value different things.

I think if you are an unusual person, then "imagining how you would feel if you were physically in their position" isn't really that useful a form of empathizing, and you have to take into account a lot of the real psychology of other people in order for it to be an informative exercise. I don't know whether that will in itself produce kindness or gentleness but it's probably a precondition.

Similar: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/oNBuivAjahuBo9pMW/when-apparently-positive-evidence-can-be-negative-evidence