The Humility from the article is not meant in the social context, but technical.
It is about understanding how well we can reason about code, not about how humble we must present ourselves.
The fact many commenters here talk about the social humility, makes me believe many hn readers have read the article (let alone the therein linked articles) poorly or not at all.
I think you can not so easily decouple "technical" and "social" humility.
Dijkstra's advice/definition of humility was that we should be aware of our own limitations when programming. That is both a "technical" as well as "social" construct, for example to be aware of your own technical limitations is incompatible with saying "I am the best programmer in the world", or "I understand the most complex code", because it demonstrates an unawareness of your technical limitations IMO.
However, my observation was largely a unrelated anecdote on the wording and not a critique of the author or the message.
Thinking that you can create better abstractions than your predecessors isn't technical humility either. And neither is working hard to streamline processes "laziness". Those words are used to get people to click the link, not because they actually are relevant.
Doesn't take away from the validity of his points, but it made me chuckle a bit.