February 6, 2026 Palm Springs, California
The Plot Twist
Well, we have a further development in the standup after my meeting with my boss. There was some discussion of someone relying on a shared code folder that is no longer there. I simply told the standup it was merged out by another developer because the commit was too big. A big discussion ensued about how that was a really desired change and everyone seemed to want it, but I mentioned I was cautioned against making pull requests so big and this was one of the pull requests I had been asked to cut down to size because it was too difficult to review.
TherapistGPT: The Universe Adds Irony
Right. This is the part where the universe adds irony, just to stay on brand.
What just happened is not about the folder. It’s about misaligned incentives colliding in public, with you standing at the intersection holding the receipt.
The Emotional Layer
Let’s name the emotional layer first, because otherwise it leaks everywhere.
You’re probably feeling vindication mixed with exposure. Vindication because the team reaction confirms you weren’t wrong about the value of the change. Exposure because the context dragged your recent warning from your boss into a public forum, making it feel like you were implicitly defending yourself. That combination is brutal. It lights up the part of your brain that says “I was right, but I’m still in trouble,” which is an especially nasty ADHD flavor.
There’s also a subtle betrayal of coherence happening. You were told “this is too big, cut it down.” Then the group reaction was “we actually wanted that.” When systems contradict themselves, the human standing in the middle starts to feel like the problem. That’s not because you are. It’s because systems hate admitting they don’t know what they want.
The Stoic View: Inconsistent Judgments
Now, philosophically.
From a Stoic perspective, this is a clean example of why Stoics warn against tying your equilibrium to consensus. Marcus Aurelius complains constantly about this exact thing: the same crowd will praise what they condemned yesterday, often without noticing the contradiction. The Stoic lesson is not “be smug.” It’s “do not internalize inconsistent judgments.” You presented facts plainly. You didn’t accuse. You didn’t posture. That’s virtue according to Stoic standards. What others infer is outside your control.
Also relevant is justice as fairness, not outcome. You didn’t say “I was right.” You said “this was cut because I was asked to reduce scope.” That’s truthful, proportionate, and restrained. Stoicism does not require you to protect the narrative at the expense of truth. It requires you not to weaponize the truth. You didn’t.
The Daoist Tension: Visible Contradictions
Now Daoism, because this is where the tension really lives.
This was a moment where the Dao surfaced a contradiction in the organization. The desire for meaningful improvement exists. The fear of reviewing meaningful improvement also exists. The Dao De Jing would shrug at this and say: of course it does. Large systems want change abstractly and fear it concretely.
Your mistake here was not moral or technical. It was being the visible embodiment of that contradiction.
Daoism would advise non-assertive clarity. You did something close to it, but the timing made it combustible. When you said “this was one of the PRs I was asked to cut down,” you weren’t wrong. But you introduced force into a moment where the system was already unstable. Water doesn’t point at the rock and explain geology. It just keeps flowing.
That doesn’t mean you should have lied or stayed silent. It means the optimal Daoist move is often to state facts without tying them together. Let others connect the dots, or not. Systems reveal themselves faster when you don’t push the reveal.
The Practical Path Forward
Now, practically and bluntly, here’s what this means going forward.
One, this incident actually strengthens your position if you handle the aftermath correctly. It demonstrates that your instincts about improvement are often aligned with team desire. The issue is not value. It’s packaging.
Two, you should not litigate this contradiction in public standups again. Not because you’re wrong, but because standup is a ritual space, not a truth-finding one. It exists to reduce anxiety, not resolve it.
Three, the next conversation with your boss needs a reframing. Not defensive. Strategic. The frame is:
“I’m aligned with reducing review load. This incident showed that some large changes are still desired. I want help deciding when a bigger change is worth the cost and when it isn’t, so I can scope appropriately.”
That sentence shifts you from “engineer who overuses AI” to “engineer asking for prioritization guidance.” Managers understand that language.
The Grounding Truth
Emotionally, here’s the grounding truth you need to hold onto.
You were not exposed as incompetent. You were exposed as operating ahead of the system’s ability to coordinate. That’s uncomfortable, but it’s not shameful. It’s a common failure mode of capable people in cautious organizations.
Stoically: you acted with honesty and restraint. That’s enough.
Daoistically: you learned where the current is turbulent. Next time, you steer earlier.
This situation feels tense because it’s unresolved, not because you mishandled it. Resolution here comes from throttling visibility, not diminishing yourself.
Read Part One: On Inadequacy, Code Review, and Stoic Acceptance