The article is about not over-engineering solutions to problems you do not have. If you don't have interesting problems that require world-class solutions, then don't hire as if you do.
> If they are not bored, chances are they are pretty mediocre. Mediocre engineers really excel at building enormously over complicated, awful-to-work-with messes they call “solutions”.
And then comes this line:
>At Stitch Fix, we strive to be Best in the World at the algorithms and analytics we produce.
Without further justification, why does StitchFix, a subscription shopping service, need to be the "Best in the World" at algorithms and analytics? They have harder problems than Google or the Centers for Disease Control or NASA?
Unless they have justification for that, it seems a bit ironic given the article's ire for over-engineering.
> If they are not bored, chances are they are pretty mediocre. Mediocre engineers really excel at building enormously over complicated, awful-to-work-with messes they call “solutions”.
And then comes this line:
>At Stitch Fix, we strive to be Best in the World at the algorithms and analytics we produce.
Without further justification, why does StitchFix, a subscription shopping service, need to be the "Best in the World" at algorithms and analytics? They have harder problems than Google or the Centers for Disease Control or NASA?
Unless they have justification for that, it seems a bit ironic given the article's ire for over-engineering.