Sure, if you're like uber at the peak of over-hiring and have hundreds of engineers more than you actually need. Then go ahead and try to reinvent things and hopefully you'll be able to improve the status quo.
But if you claim to be a small team that needs to ship fast, I believe you should just pick the industry standard boring technology and grind away.
The question is to fully see (and boringly like the parent post was talking about) what are the rewards and the risks to decide if it is worth it or not. What if it made the company tanked financially (like you would have to go back to the state before but have to rewrite the rewrite because you had to change the database design in your first rewrite or something) and not be able to ship for another 6 months? Being a small team you don't have all the cash you want unless you already made it big. Also you have to explain to your investors why you won't ship. And really how come you are an expert in tech when you had to redo it from scratch so next time maybe they can reinvest.
This type of decision needs clear planning, reward and risk, and a real business goal to happen. But let's be real many times it's not the case and X is the new cool tech. I am all about being audacious but in a calculated way.
But if you claim to be a small team that needs to ship fast, I believe you should just pick the industry standard boring technology and grind away.