I do think the original[1] is worth a read. Even if I didn't like the style, I can appreciate the message: complexity is a cost, spend your complexity budget on things that matter, take the 80/20 Pareto win, no silver bullet, Chesterton's fence, etc. Importantly, the original is ever so slightly self-deprecating in a way that the intended audience can appreciate.

Compare this quote from the OP.

> Even when new grug shout loudly, important not to give new grug too much shiny rock. Why? First: make sure new grug really want to join tribe, make tribe strong.

Those who have read enough startup executive "thought leadership" probably recognize this idea: don't hire people who care about competitive compensation - those who work for passion will accept less. For the record, I personally think this idea is inherently toxic and exploitative - but let's put that aside for a moment. Even if one were to accept that idea as valid, this framing comes off as infantilizing. The same tone that was at least arguably acceptable for self-deprecation is entirely inappropriate for deprecating others.

I can only imagine this guy's employees are going to have a bad time.

[1]: https://grugbrain.dev/

This article, past the similar language, has very much a vibe of "this is the way to do it, trust in yourself, don't listen to haters, don't hire HR". Theres 0 mention of listening to customers or your team; the assumption is your instincts and existing skills are definitely good enough and you don't need to learn anything more?!

I'd take a freelancer / mercenary who wants to get stuff done, invoice me and afford their own house - over someone from /r/anti-work