If you're going to make this criticism, I feel you also need to be capable of recognizing when such criticism actually is valid [1]. That is, under which circum

If you're going to make this criticism, I feel you also need to be capable of recognizing when such criticism actually is valid [1]. That is, under which circumstances would someone be justified in saying "okay this is not an optimal problem" (A famous example from the other direction was when Uber re-engineered a querying service to better fit the use case, where several HNers and a Medium article showed why their re-invented wheel was worse than an off-the-shelf solution that they just weren't using correctly [2].) If you can't satisfy that, then this feels like a fully-general rejection of any claim that an org has over-complicated a problem or has unnecessary bloat, and/or that no one can criticize until they've personally worked (for n months) at the org. Which itself would be hard to defend. [1] Based on my "Scylla-Charybdis"/Goldilocks Heuristic: http://blog.tyrannyofthemouse.com/2015/12/the-scylla-charybdis-heuristic-if-more.html http://blog.tyrannyofthemouse.com/2015/12/the-scylla-charybd... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21537008 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21537008