Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You can actually see this in SpaceX. In development when stakes are relatively low (e.g., no payload or passengers), the risk threshold is high. But they start taking a more measured approach when that risk starts to ratchet up. The danger being, advocates of one approach don't always know when/how to transition to the other. This corroborates "fail fast". They achieve reliability and safety by launching far more t…
> This corroborates "fail fast". But it also shows "fail slow" later. My point is that "fail fast" is not some hard rule to abide by, but contextually dependent on the risk at stake.
Nothing contradicts that. SpaceX does do this contextually. Once they nailed down the Falcon 9 rocket, the boosters and the Merlin engine, they mostly stopped messing with it and focused on operational excellence. But to get to that point they failed fast, because it's the most effective way to get reliability.