> Like our website, our machines are simple so we can build millions of them as quickly as possible.

WordPress seems like a reasonable choice to build a website "as quickly as possible".

Um, no. That's index.html, and they already used it for the homepage.

To publish blog posts? No, it's really not.

I don't like WordPress either, I prefer static site generators, but if you're going for something simple and fast to setup it's a legitimate choice.

I would never describe, with a straight face, WordPress as "simple". Nothing with that many sharp edges is.

It's not that WordPress, the technology, is simple. It's that deploying the bog standard solution, rather than investing energy into researching alternatives and developing workflows for them, is a simple and pragmatic approach.

Those sharp edges aren't really relevant anyway on a hosted service (wordpress.com) where they are buffed out for you.

It's simple until you miss some security update and get 0wned.

Again, they're using a hosted service. They aren't on the hook for security updates, wordpress.com is.

What do you propose is the simpler, more pragmatic solution to standing up a blog, compared to going to wordpress.com and registering a free tier account?