I'm talking from a graduate perspective, but the courses I TAd for undergrad were not what I would call 'primitive engineering' as there is an emphasis on analysis and rigor.
It is a science to be able to build programs and prove things about them. It is way more abstract maths than anything in engineering (linear algebra still has some physical grounding in reality, where category theory is more for the organization of mind).
I don't really know, computer science seems concerned with equipping the student with the best tools to solve a problem, and mastery in the creation of them. Computer engineering concerns itself with similar concepts, but at a lower level of abstraction. It's still not EE, which is lower still.
I studied computer/electrical engineering for part of my undergrad, and computer science for my masters. The biggest difference I recognized was the level of abstraction. Each has it's own maths, systems of reasoning and analysis.
Loneliness is like a gaping wound, anything you try to fill it with just seems to make it hurt more.
Masturbation is fine, but that longing for real human connection, that is something that I don't think is replaceable by any of these forms. Even conversations spread across strangers, it just feels like trying to fit together a jigsaw puzzle with the wrong pieces.
The difference between philosophy you read because you want to be well read in philosophy, and philosophy you understand because you've lived it and perhaps come to similar conclusions yourself, is vast. Philosophy, especially of the modern era (not including the last 20 years or so), is mostly limited to the individual (existentialist sort of stuff).
You create technology that links people together in a myriad of confusing and obtuse, symbolic, mush of ways, treating link between person to person like it is an identifiable, atomic thing (of which a computer has limited understanding of compared to that of someone who is socially affluent), that seems to make 'okay' sense just because nothing better has replaced that 'yet'. Then after this is done, you don't expect the academic world philosophy to go completely nuts for a brief period in time?
In colleges we educate on philosophy but to most students that are brought into the classical philosophers, they haven't had the kind of living experience for philosophy to make sense to them, and those that stick with it find themselves in a world that is fundamentally separate and distinct, from the ones that Locke, Hegel and Heidegger wrote about (or not, but it's different enough to make you a little kooky).
There's more connectivity in theory and reason between the stuff that computer scientists dream up, and the stuff that post modernists seemingly automate as of logical consequence, than is capable of being seen. I'm a computer scientist and an artist, and I know it's not as simple as calling one field crap and the other field correct, when I find myself often standing in the middle of a storm. I've read some post modern philosophy that makes a great deal more sense to me than some computer science literature, or developer superstition.
Logic can really fool you into believing there is a singular way to perceive the world with. And it's tempting, because it just seems to prove itself correct, continuously, it creates a reduction in what is otherwise chaos made from white noise trying to perceive itself as anything besides white noise. But with that, I feel there is a great loss in individuality, creativity, freedom of thought itself. You can chase yourself in circles finding every logical and cognitive bias you may succumb to. Is that a reason to step on every misshapen and imperfect sappling before it can turn into a tree?
I really actually love finding questions like that on SO. Sometimes the only way you learn how to do something better is through spontaneous example, because it's just not intuitive or inline with the current flow of things.
Maybe they would be better categorized into some group that is more appropriate, but then you lose the possibility of someone within that knowledge domain being able to answer the question appropriately.
Those questions run right alongside reading documentation for fun.
I suppose an overhaul to the infrastructure of question answering could help solve this problem - like questions have a maturity cycle / process in which they are developed into a more refined / edited sorts of comprehensive documentation, or even a better 'smarter' way of linking clusters of question together, or a way of moderating the authoritative direction of a question (rather than delete or replace, show a progression of modifications so people can learn what are model questions and what are less useful kinds).
Getting people to stop asking kinds of questions will never work, because they ask those questions precisely because they have not been trained in any sorts of formal internet etiquette. If you want to prevent the community from collapsing in on itself, I think the best solution is to modify the flow and connectivity of questions, so that they are intelligently inter-related, rather than relying on a sort of competitive singular universal form.
It is a science to be able to build programs and prove things about them. It is way more abstract maths than anything in engineering (linear algebra still has some physical grounding in reality, where category theory is more for the organization of mind).