From a software quality or software engineering POV --> this is clearly not building durable value, not scalable, etc. So I'd agree with you there.

But from the POV of say, a young startup company looking for PMF and navigating the ambiguities involved with trying to figure out what is the "right thing" to build that will appeal/delight/convince-people-to-pay --> being 10X faster at shipping 80% done projects, is actually incredibly, unfathomably valuable of a superpower. And it is also rationally the "right thing" to do, to make lots of cheap bets and fail/learn fast.

I find that many folks on my team (I am a manager/leader of small-to-mid size eng org), struggle with accepting the nuances of knowing the difference between different projects (where same team may need to do both kinds of work, all the time and in parallel):

- "Hey, the company needs, and you and I both agree, that this situation calls for building/renovating a skyscraper --> please design a fucking strong/safe/reliable skyscraper and don't take any shortcuts, this requires 'real' engineering"

- Vs, "Hey, the company isn't sure what it needs, and neither you nor I know any better either, so let's try a bunch of different shacks/sheds/treehouses/whatever, until we find something that has traction / makes us money (and it's okay if the shed collapses -- so long as the business knows this too, that it wasn't meant to be a load-bearing, skyscraper-esque thing anyways)"

I won't get into the rabbit hole of talking about dealing with bad business leaders, who want a skyscraper but expect to pay the price of a shack/shed. Let's assume that we are talking about the type of companies (maybe the minority) that are reasonable enough to know and acknowledge the difference. Then what is the game-theoretic/rational thing for them to do, and how does this 10X idea express itself? That's where my argument is coming from.