> But the attitude that "X that fails at 9/10 companies isn't the problem, we just need to change millions of engineers" is a naive attitude. It's even worse t

> But the attitude that "X that fails at 9/10 companies isn't the problem, we just need to change millions of engineers" is a naive attitude. It's even worse than naïve, it's a literal fallacy, a "No true Scotsman" with technology. System resilience is important at scale, and resilience includes being resilient to the failures in the human component of development; if a system depends that every one developing it to be a master of the underlying foundation then you'll require lots of very specialised, competent people who mastered the technique. That is very costly, if microservices depend on high mastery then we should budget the cost of the talented people required to run it. My experiences with how to successfully deploy microservices include much the opposite: giving tooling to incompetent people to avoid the worst footguns, training them in best practices over time while designing an architecture that is somewhat resilient to their inevitable failures, one that is easy to be fixed when they've learned how to best use it.