Maybe I have it wrong but the very essence of "engineering" is managing the constraints of (1) providing an acceptable solution to a problem (2) within some fixed parameters of time and cost.

The code may look "bad" in a vacuum but if it yielded a successful outcome then the engineer was able to achieve his/her goal for the business.

The stories shared in this article are exactly what you'd expect from big tech. These are some of the most successful firms in the history of capitalism. As an engineer you are just grist in the mill. If you want to reliably produce "good" code then IMO become an artist. And no ... working at a research facility or non-profit wont save you.

> The code may look "bad" in a vacuum

Substitute "buggy" for "bad". The links in the first sentence of the article refer to bugs, which affect end users of the products.

> If you want to reliably produce "good" code then IMO become an artist.

This is not about aesthetics but rather about QA.