If you accept that engineering skill fits the normal distribution, it's less likely that they are "terrible" than merely average.
Amazing 10X engineers could still pull off shipping a working product even with all the organizational handicaps I mentioned in my earlier post. This doesn't excuse the deficiencies of the organization, nor does it mean that "average" engineers are undesirable or can't do good work. I agree with the theme of the cited article--rather than scapegoat the engineers and pay external consultants to "fix their mistakes", fix the organization and enable the engineers to do quality work.
"Amazing 10X engineers could still pull off shipping a working product even with all the organizational handicaps I mentioned in my earlier post."
They could. They're also good enough that they could easily say, "Fuck that shit" and go work somewhere that doesn't have that toxicity. And unless you have a significant ownership stake in the company, I don't see why you wouldn't do just that. Life is too short to work shitty jobs if you have the option not to.
Amazing 10X engineers could still pull off shipping a working product even with all the organizational handicaps I mentioned in my earlier post. This doesn't excuse the deficiencies of the organization, nor does it mean that "average" engineers are undesirable or can't do good work. I agree with the theme of the cited article--rather than scapegoat the engineers and pay external consultants to "fix their mistakes", fix the organization and enable the engineers to do quality work.