Knowing those patterns is very helpful as a way to think about design problems, as long as you have the common sense to realize applying the pattern "by the book" is often overkill and you can just take some ideas out of it.
That article conflates as "Pure engineering" both reducing a software system to a small set of cohesive concepts, and architecture astronauts, when those are polar opposites.
> Companies burned hundreds of thousands of engineer-hours migrating from monoliths to microservices, or from HTTP service calls to event-sourced architecture, or from event-sourced architecture to full CQRS, and so on.
Is that what you're talking about? imo this hardly counts as an attack on CQRS itself. The issue is rather with enterprise companies forcing the migration of large codebases based mostly on hype.
I searched HN comments for mentions of "CQRS" over the past year. It's mentioned very infrequently outside of "who's hiring" posts, and mostly in a neutral manner. Very little of what I'd describe as a "drive-by attack".