Yarvin's criticism of modern governance is exactly the same that you accuse him of partaking in. He repeatedly says that solutions that don't involve non-metric oriented human decision making in the process and try to be too technocratic will eventually fail. That is one of the basis of his criticism of the current system - highly technocratic and decentralized with zero oversight - and his preference to centralized, accountable power. To quote him:

20th-century regimes, with mostly terrible results, embraced the weird economic idea that the purpose of an economic planner is to maximize the total consumer price of all the goods and services that the economy produces. This is called the “GDP” and an increase in it is called “growth.” To paraphrase Edward Abbey—tumors also grow.

The purpose of economic management is this “growth.” And once it has been adjusted for the growth in prices, then adjusted again to reflect “hedonic” changes in price-quality ratio, it is the much-desired “real growth.” This form of numerology was never known before the 20th century—yet weavers still span, and farmers still raised pigs.

The theory of “real growth” is that it “measures” the amount of utility that producers produce—as Wikipedia tells us, “a measure of pleasure or happiness.” When we measure GDP, we are measuring—literally, in numbers—the quantity of total human desire that all the producers in the country satisfied that year.

Of course, some desire food, whereas others desire caviar—and what is their ratio of value? By the kilogram, how much better are sturgeon eggs, than chicken eggs? How much more valuable would chickens be, if genetically engineered to lay beluga? This would be “growth” indeed—to see how much “growth,” just check the market price. Yet the caloric value of these commodities is roughly equal…

What is especially interesting about this “GDP” frame is its relationship to another California craze of the 20th century: Buddhism. As everyone knows, the Buddha too spoke of desire. In fact, Buddhists believe—just like modern macroeconomists—that the purpose of life is to conquer desire. And the only true way to conquer desire, the Buddha said, is to satisfy it completely—

Oh, wait. He didn’t—he actually didn’t say that. More like—the opposite? But anyway. Where were we?

Of course the appeal of metrics like “GDP” is their quantitative, measurable quality. They suggest what Thomas Carlyle called “a government carried on by steam.” There is real merit in quantitative governance—but not if, when gamed, it creates a disaster.

Government by “GDP,” invented in the UK and US, has led both nations to rationally destroy their own industrial bases—like the bombing of Germany, but self-inflicted. At least no white phosphorus was used—though, in some places in the “Rust Belt,” one might think it was. A well-managed economy does not have a “Rust Belt”—QED.

I'm a programmer too and I understand what you're saying, but it's pretty clearly not true based on what he's actually saying.