Having empathy for fields outside your own is exactly why this article is written.
It sounds like you only have a single perspective, which is fine, but having more perspectives would help you move beyond being so rigid in your thinking.
The parent didn't display any rigidity of thinking, they simply criticized your inaccurate characterization of engineering work... a point which your non sequitur reply does not address.
Your fallacy is conflating engineering work and an individual engineer's scope on said work.
Projects can fail, engineering teams can face delays - all common things. But an individual engineer is very unlikely to lose his/her job over it, in contrast to a sales person missing on his/her quarterly number repeatedly.
You're backtracking. You claimed an engineer's work is deterministic and fully under his or her control. That may be true for a very limited subset of jobs, where engineers are doing essentially trivial tasks, but more generally, that is false.
Are engineers less likely to be held accountable for missing goals due to external factors? That depends on the organization, but that's an entirely different claim.
> By comparison, an engineer's work is "deterministic" in that is fully under his or her control to complete the goal.
It sounds like you only have a single perspective, which is fine, but having more perspectives would help you move beyond being so rigid in your thinking.
I hope you don't manage engineers.