Hacker News Reader

>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.

View on HN

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.

I mean, the whole point if failing fast is to stop failing faster. If you just keep failing fast without end you're not going to be around long...

See the last comment of my OP. The risk I'm poking at is a cultural one, where "failing fast" becomes an acceptable mode of operating, regardless of the context.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com