What makes you believe that the author of the parent post mentioned the "offshore" characteristic unnecessarily?
When interpreting the story, isn't it important that readers understand that the programmer who added the call to sleep was far removed from both the help desk and the end user of the software and was also unreachable at the time the call was discovered and thus that the author, who worked at the help desk, had to presume that the call was left in the code mistakenly? It's only later in the story that readers (and the author) learn about the ticket-submitter's unusual preferences for satisfying the end user. And it's only then that another possibility dawns upon readers: that, perhaps, the "offshore programmer" knew more about making the stakeholders look good than initially given credit for.
If the author of the parent post is not allowed to reveal that the programmer was working "offshore," how does the story get told at all?
When interpreting the story, isn't it important that readers understand that the programmer who added the call to sleep was far removed from both the help desk and the end user of the software and was also unreachable at the time the call was discovered and thus that the author, who worked at the help desk, had to presume that the call was left in the code mistakenly? It's only later in the story that readers (and the author) learn about the ticket-submitter's unusual preferences for satisfying the end user. And it's only then that another possibility dawns upon readers: that, perhaps, the "offshore programmer" knew more about making the stakeholders look good than initially given credit for.
If the author of the parent post is not allowed to reveal that the programmer was working "offshore," how does the story get told at all?