This is hilarious. But dangerous, because the same air-headed designers who need to face the truths won’t get the message anyway. It is also full of hyperbolic self-righteousness for the sake of rhetoric. But I will bite the link-bait… and add some fuel to the fire:

1. Colors do have meanings. There are tons of scientific evidence to that. And another nasty truth: you are not a unique snow flake, so beware of the “personal” fallacy — yes, color experience varies much, but color meaning not that much. Just try that pedestrian crossing with the red light on, if you really want to challenge that notion.
2. Yes, position is highly important (one major reason why ‘responsive design’ is a fundamentally flawed concept). But what you are really talking about is consistency and constancy. So your advice here boils down to “once an interface is in use, don’t change the position of elements”
3. TL;DR.
4. The trick is to understand that navigation is fundamental whenever you have multiple contexts in the same application. If don’t have multiple contexts, you don’t need navigation. Then, it’s a matter of doing your job, and designing minimally intrusive and frictionless navigation.
5. Content is good, UI is bad? Design the content? You’re turning the issue on its head for rhetorical effect. What really happens is that the naming/verbing of the content is the app. And I mean the whole app, from inside out. Naming things is how you model the data, the application, and the UI. If you’re talking about designing the content, then you’re talking about an occupation that is not UI design: you are talking about product design, i.e., the creation of the whole product as such. Having said that, I should add that every design job (be it digital or tangible) is the creation of an interface. If, for instance, you are designing a shears, you are designing an interface for the verb “cutting”. I understand what you are trying to say. Nevertheless, it is dangerously expressed in a mixture of metaphor and realism that might be used as an excuse to evade the real job of the UI designer. There is an issue of scope here. Your job will be different depending on how wide or narrow is your scope in the whole project.
6. Do the sitemap and navigation last? Isn’t that the “information architecture” you were talking about earlier? This is the naming and verbing you were advising us to get right.
7. I absolutely agree with you on user testing. This article is worth a read if only for this point. I would just add this: you have to know what you are testing for; before you test and before you analyse the results.
   And regarding innovation, it is a recurring argument that has been made for ages in market research. The classic example is user-testing a hula-hoop.
8. You are probably right. All those tons of useless programming must take their toll. I never thought of that.
9. You probably hang out with the wrong coders. And they probably hang out with the wrong designers… However, some coders love complexity, and some love laziness. I myself advise against over-engineering, as much as I advise against over-simplifying and over-anythinging.
   But there is another problem here: many “coders” are… well… coders! To develop real applications you need real software developers instead of “coders”. What I mean is that there is a big difference between someone who has in-depth knowledge of computer programming and someone who can hack in a dozen different languages and environments but has cursory knowledge of software engineering.