When it comes to over-engineering and solving zero real-world problems, that's mostly a company, management and/or investor problem. There's many startups out t

When it comes to over-engineering and solving zero real-world problems, that's mostly a company, management and/or investor problem. There's many startups out there where the primary goal is not to solve a business problem profitably but to build a complex engineering playground so they can be part of the "cool kids" club and justify the next VC round. This translates to hiring - if your job spec is nothing but buzzwords you'll attract the kind of people that "engineer" for engineering's sake and resume value as opposed to solving your business problem (hell, does the job spec even include the actual business problem you're solving beyond vague platitudes about changing the world and boasting about their VC funding?). Salaries need to reflect it too - if you pay too low, the only people that can afford to work for you are those that do so for the resume value rather than the money or the fun of playing in an engineering playground and potentially becoming its lead - with again zero concern as to whether they're solving the business problem. The kind of engineer you'd actually want usually already makes good money and no longer needs the resume value nor can be bothered to over-engineer. Even as a contractor I've had plenty of leads where it became clear they weren't looking for an efficient solution to their business problem but an over-engineered mess to expand their engineering playground and my counterpoints fell on deaf ears.