This title is intentionally misleading, but I'm glad for it because it was a good read. But essentially what it is doing is redefining the term 'technical debt'

This title is intentionally misleading, but I'm glad for it because it was a good read. But essentially what it is doing is redefining the term 'technical debt' in terms of its original, intended definition, as opposed to the definition by which it has been re-appropriated, i.e. 'bad software'. If you define 'technical debt' in the re-appropriated sense, it is surprising to see an article title which translates to 'Bad Software is Not a Bad Thing', which is why I immediately read the article. But the original definition makes so much more sense, and actually provides the motivation for thinking of 'technical debt' as having a real place in the philosophical conversation of building software.