I suppose I can see how people are taking this piece that way, but I don't see it like that. It is snarky and ranty, which makes it hard to express or perceive nuance. They do explicitly acknowledge that "a single server can go a long way" though.

I think the real point, better expressed, is that if you find yourself building a system with like a third of the features of K8s but composed of hand-rolled scripts and random third-party tools kludged together, maybe you should have just bit the bullet and moved to K8s instead.

You probably shouldn't start your project on it unless you have a dedicated DevOps department maintaining your cluster for you, but don't be afraid to move to it if your needs start getting more complex.

Author here. Yes there were many times while writing this that I wanted to insert nuance, but couldn't without breaking the format too much.

I appreciate the wide range of interpretations! I don't necessarily think you should always move to k8s in those situations. I just want people to not dismiss k8s outright for being overly-complex without thinking too hard about it. "You will evolve towards analogues of those design ideas" is a good way to put it.

That's also how I interpreted the original post about compilers. The reader is stubbornly refusing to acknowledge that compilers have irreducible complexity. They think they can build something simpler, but end up rediscovering the same path that lead to the creation of compilers in the first place.