Huh? They're giving it as an example of something that is backend-heavy that they don't want your product to be like. You've got it backwards.
> (Your product is (not (backend-heavy, such as: ...machine-learning models)))
I think it's you who have got it backwards.
Here's the entire thing:
"This probably isn’t a good fit if:
Your product is not backend-heavy, such as: an iPhone game, hardware, machine-learning models, blockchain, or embedded systems."
I read that as "if you're a hardware startup, you're not backend-heavy, so you are not a good fit", "if you're an iPhone game startup, you're not backend-heavy, so you are not a good fit", and yes, also "if you're a machine learning startup, you are not backend-heavy, so you are not a good fit".
The other examples (iphone games, embedded systems) are not back end heavy.
I think what they mean by "back end heavy" is actually CRUD heavy and they put all these systems together under that non-CRUD heavy banner.
Yes, it's clear enough that they don't want you to be a member of that list. But what characterizes the elements of that list?! In any grammatical or intuitive reading of
"This probably isn't a good fit if your product is not backend-heavy, such as: ..."
the "..." is a list of things that are "not backend-heavy". And the first element is "iPhone game", which is certainly an example of something that is "not backend-heavy"!
> (Your product is (not (backend-heavy, such as: ...machine-learning models)))
Oh no! That's horribly confusing and not how lists are used in English! If that's what they meant, the post needs rewording. The correct way to say something like that is e.g., "Your product is back-end heavy but is not [insert delineating characteristics], such as: [insert original list here]".
To return the substance instead of grammar, IMO the "[insert delineating characteristics]" portion of that sentence is exactly what's missing from this advert!
I thought they were referring to a multiplayer game with a server that has to be very low latency, handle a lot of connections, and not easily distributable, so that did seem backend-heavy.
But whatever they mean then, it's obviously not clear enough.