I know you carry on to have a good argument down thread, but why do you feel the first part defensible?

The author's saying great products don't come from solo devs. Linux? Dropbox? Gmail? Ruby on Rails? Python? The list is literally endless.

But the author then claims that all great products come from committee? I've seen plenty of products die by committee. I've never seen one made by it.

Their initial argument is seriously flawed, and not at all defensible. It doesn't match reality.

I just don't want to engage with it; I'm willing to stipulate those points. I'm really fixated on the strange example Weakly used to demonstrate why these tools shouldn't actually do things, but instead just whisper in the ears of humans. Like, you can actually make that argument about coding! I don't agree, but I see how the argument goes. I don't see how it makes any sense at all for incident response.

I know the "what you refer to as Linux is, in fact, GNU/Linux" thing has become a sort of tongue-in-cheek meme, but it actually applies here: crediting Linus Torvalds alone for the success of Linux ignores crucial contributions from RMS, Ken Thompson, Dennis Ritchie and probably dozens or hundreds of others.

Ruby on Rails? Are we talking about the Ruby part (Matz) or the Rails part (DHH)?

Dropbox was founded by Drew Houston and Arash Ferdowsi. The initial Gmail development team had multiple people plus the infrastructure and resources of Google. I'm not sure why people love the lone genius story so much, but it's definitely the exception and not the rule.