We temporarily replaced this article's baity title with the text's more accurate self-description.
If someone would care to suggest a good title—i.e. accurate, neutral, and preferably drawn from the language of the article itself—we can change it again.
FWIW, I think the original title was pretty good. I have had the unfortunate experience of screaming pretty much exactly those words (albeit replace "Google" with a different company from which one of my CEO's advisors came from).
EDIT: how about combine the two?
You Are Not Google: Another "Don't Cargo Cult" Article
I like your proposed title, "Another 'Don't Cargo Cult' article" on its own seems dismissive, when the content seems quite useful for many engineers (the acronym need more work, though).
What's predictable is intrinsically uninteresting. The OP partly redeems itself by offering concrete ideas, though, which gives the article a bit more substance than usual.
> What's predictable is intrinsically uninteresting.
Information theory aside, I don't agree. Observing repeated patterns of failure and error is very instructive, especially since restatements often help me see it in a better light.
If anything, HN trends heavily towards repetitions of survivor bias. Much more fun to read cool papers and imagine yourself implementing them. But the fellow on the chariot with the red-painted face still needs an attendant whispering "remember, thou art mortal" over and over.
If someone would care to suggest a good title—i.e. accurate, neutral, and preferably drawn from the language of the article itself—we can change it again.