When I interpret it I see it as a valid point: When it's not one person or group doing it but the responsibility is widely distributed in space (many people in

When I interpret it I see it as a valid point: When it's not one person or group doing it but the responsibility is widely distributed in space (many people in many places) and time (evolving complexity) we tend to just accept things as "that's just how it is" and not even try to challenge it. Which of course has a practical aspect, since it is about the hardest thing of all to try to change this kind of stuff. For example, when I compare my Atari 1040 STFM and what I could do with it with the progress in hardware and software and what I can do now I can only conclude that hardware and software advances greatly outpaced the actual "customer-facing" abilities of the system. Sure I can do much - much - more now, I'm talking about scale comparison. So all those much-greater-scale advances disappear somewhere between the internals of the system and what the user gets in the end. But saying exactly where or even changing it would be an incredibly challenge, and given the continuously changing landscape practically impossible. Not sure how that applies in this context, "overengineering" after all is exactly not what I describe since that's a word meant to used for a deliberate design process, but that's my thoughts for the above comment and the issue raised by the OP comment about page size and complexity on Medium.