No, it's not saying that at all. You are missing all the nuance.
It's saying that the change which has a small effect is never worth while (and... pay attention now. This is the other part of the post you missed: context)....
*IN RELATION TO* the larger effect which costs the same in time/effort/capital/energy/emotions/stress/give-a-fuck.
Ok, so what is that larger effect that costs the same, then?
The idea that you need to do something that is better before you can do something that is less, even if the cost is the same seems to imply that there is only a limited amount of energy that is expendable on these topics.
As seen from the bucketloads of comments and posts about this OLD issue (the python link is from 2018) it seems there's enough energy going around.
The idea that something can't be good, just because it is not the highest item on a list is nonproductive.
Nobody is saying that X isn't good.
Everybody is saying that X is good, but Y is much better.
So if you want to make a productive choice then go for Y, not X!
At the very least, if you are going to choose X anyway stop trying to persuade everybody else to choose X with you, when they are already focusing on Y. That's just attention-seeking behaviour.
You are extremely uncharitable. There's no point of engaging you further.
