I suppose it does accurately reflect the methodology, but the images it conjures up are something akin to programmers jumping off cliffs with a laptop in their hand and a parachute strapped on their back. I'm not ready to jump up and down and say that this is the best thing I've ever read. I have some reservations about the way a few things are done, such as the way user stories are created and the fact that projects don't seem to end but just slowly fade away. The lack of models also leaves me with a bit of a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach. Having said all that, however, I see a lot of merit in many of the ideas.
Simplicity is great, provided that everyone understands what simple really is.
I like the amount of testing that's required and that fact that releases are timeboxed. I also appreciate that the developers have control over one of the four variables. I can see it being a difficult thing to do when you are building software components, simply because the constant change and refactoring would become difficult to deal with once you have components that are published and being consumed by other applications. It does, however, take many of what its supporters consider to be the best practices of software development to extreme levels. Beck, Kent. 1999.