Sometimes it's better to burn a bridge so you don't even think about crossing it in the future.

See, I left a company some years ago because I didn't see my future in it and all management combined had a collective intelligence of a chicken.
However, I got a call from them a couple of months ago asking me if I could return. The salary was double and the working arrangement seemed fine. On paper. WFH. Flexibile hours...
Since I actually liked the project itself for its technical challenge, I accepted the return offer. What a bad idea that was.

Of course, the things that made me leave for the first time had only gotten worse. Bad leadership, idiot developers in team leader positions. Tech debt higher than Mount Everest. Bad infra that makes you want to off yourself every time you work on it. The whole circus.
Seriously, the "senior" team leader will happily merge code that includes assert(true == true), but hold up a well written MR because he has a personal vendetta with the developer.
Personally, I always check him whenever he starts being an ass. But the poor juniors are in hell. They're terrified.
Now I'm leaving again, but this time I've made sure I can't come back.

How about to cut off the carbohydrates?
Let's start with this spaghetti code of yours

What i thought to be a cool company, turned out to be a shitshow.

Our "Team Lead" when assigning tasks keeps saying things like "it's only..." or "It's just..." or "You only need to change one line [there]..." And that's in regard to a terrible product with a pile of tech debt. So when you actually start to develop/fix things, you end up redoing third of the whole application.

How do you deal with this? How do you tell the "leader" that he should look into what we have in a code before making us all look bad for doing "just this one line change"?

Can someone explain to me the need of a "technical management"? I know my question is naive, but try to explain it like to kindergarten kid.

Case 1. When team is good, and has a good tech leader(s) then the software director/manager makes more harm with his silly ideas, pompous cliche "calls to arms" etc.

Case 2. On the other hand, when software team is shit, it means that the management is responsible for assembling such team. Then it further means that they can't distinguish impostors from really good talents, which leads to bad quality, missed deliveries, bugs, frustrations, etc.

I saw many times when good technical lead (aka architect, staff, principal) made a positive difference. But I NEVER EVER saw that things were bad and "manager/director" made a positive change. This concept is soooo flawed....

... any one explain please?