That's called doing it manually.
What you're doing is making excuses rather than holding yourself to a higher level of quality.
Yes, a common feature in unstable environments. Automation is an ideal, but not a necessity, and it's not always viable or cost-effective.
But also that the unfailing competency means that you need to contiously maintain (all aspects of the) automation without fail, again in spite of a changing environment. Across everyone who does things.
>What you're doing is making excuses rather than holding yourself to a higher level of quality.
And what you're doing is pretending that firing off blind, trivial prescriptions is a useful activity -- perhaps I'll soon find you selling self-help books as well :-)
Automation is not an answer that can always be applied trivially; especially retroactively. Even despite all the marketing that will tell you otherwise.
You're just bad. You automate specifically to take the human error risk out of the equation, that's a part of what it means to be competent. We don't automate our deploys because it's an ideal that is not a necessity, but so some jackass doesn't delete a configuration while also never putting it into a backup, or source control, or on their dev machine, ad nauseum.
It's not an accident that some of us have been working 20+ years in this industry and have never been the cause of something like this.
> Automation is not an answer that can always be applied trivially; especially retroactively. Even despite all the marketing that will tell you otherwise.
shit, I guess I didn't read the right pamphlet...