For example, item 2 ("Simplify") tries to debunk the notion that simpler systems are more robust. The author seems to be trying to say, "simplifying a system isn't always going to make it more robust". Likewise, item 1 ("Add redundancy") tries to debunk the notion that redundant systems are more robust. Item 7 ("Remove the people who cause accidents") tries to debunk the notion that if you have someone who is always screwing stuff up, getting rid of that person will help you.
But...OK, I get it, none of these things are silver bullets or sacred cows or whatever. But what's the suggestion? Make systems more complicated? Avoid redundancy? Keep people around who always screw stuff up? This would make a lot more sense if it was presented as things which might help, but shouldn't be thought of as silver bullets that will automatically fix everything. Instead it's presented as myths being debunked, implying that the "myths" aren't just imperfect, but wrong, which doesn't make sense to me. Simpler is better than overly complicated. Redundancy doesn't solve everything but can certainly help. Getting rid of terrible employees who never seem to improve is generally a good idea. The way the list is presented seems not actionable at best, and misleading at worst.