You know, I read the summary without understanding it, and just clicked through to read the article, but only after reading your comment did I realize just how little
sense the summary really made.
In a blog post, Steve Hanov explains how 20 lines of code can outperform A/B testing.
It starts off talking about a nobody who did something that is apparently so trivial that it can be outdone by 20 lines of code. You might think that the following sentence will answer at least one of the questions raised by this sentence: Who is Steve Hanov? What is A/B testing? What do Steve's 20 lines of code do? But you'd be wrong.
Using an example from one of his own sites, Hanov reports a green button outperformed orange and white buttons.
Because the next sentence jumps to a topic whose banality and seeming irrelevance to the matter at hand defies belief. Three coloured buttons, one of which 'outperformed' the others, with nary a hint as to what these buttons do, or how one can outperform the others.
Why don't people use this method?
The third sentence appears to pick up where the first left off. Why don't people use the A/B testing method? Or are we talking about the three coloured buttons method?
Because most don't understand or trust machine learning algorithms, mainstream tools don't support it, and maybe because bad design will sometimes win.
The final sentence is a tour-de-force of disjointed confusion. It skips from machine learning algorithms that haven't been discussed, to tools with unknown purpose, to the design of something which was never specified.
It's like the summary is some kind of abstract art installation whose purpose is to be as uninformative as possible. It is literally the opposite of informative: Not only does it provide no information, it raises questions which you can't even be sure relate to the purported topic at hand, because you don't know what the topic at hand is.
It is either a bizarrely confused summary or one of the most artful trolls ever to grace Slashdot's front page