[DasIch]

I would also add that what the question really really means is "Do they understand what we and I are doing here? Do they understand what they are asking of me? Can they emphasize with me?"

That's really important. It's annoying to constantly have to explain and justify basic things because people in power don't understand what the workers are doing. I'm also pretty sure that's true regardless of who you are, which company or industry you work in and what you do, you'd prefer to be lead by people who understand what you are doing.

[smackeyacky]

It’s important for a technical manager to be able to effectively advocate for their programmers. Otherwise you just get constantly railroaded by the high priests of sysadmin or devops into technical decisions that make no sense.

My manager is not technical. The work environment is shit. Just a constant stream of brotherhood decisions that don’t work you are supposed to deliver systems into. The whole thing is bloody stupid but if our manager had a clue it wouldn’t happen. Before you ask, yes we try but the stupid bugger can’t stick to a script despite how easy we make it because the other managers constantly pull him into the suck of what suits everybody else rather than what works.

I hate the bastard.

[netdevnet]

Yes, this is it. The goal of the question is "Do they understand what we and I are doing here? Do they understand what they are asking of me? Can they empathize with me?". And the meaning is simply if they have programming skills.

The article makes it sound like it the usage implies some devaluing of those who are not technical which is not the case (outside tech bro culture)