This is a nitpick on "... not a single ..." claim by GP.

GP is otherwise right. First figure in the article is a joke. And that makes the article a joke.

Plenty of waterfalls out there. Even more non-waterfalls, aware of iterative, modern process, who will kick you out of the discussion if you try to sell them waterfall.

ML processes need innovation over those of traditional s/w dev. This article is the worst place on the internet to look for that innovation.

Plenty of waterfalls in ML pipelines as well.

The circular chart example given for Machine Learning is virtually identical to a cycle of continuous improvement in a service or manufacturing operation, except for one little detail,

with Continuous Improvement you don't want the minimum viable product, you want the Maximum Viable Product.

Seems like a machine learning outfit would really benefit from a leader who is smarter to begin with, a better learner, and already more skilled in the task that you want the machine to do.