Amen.

Another example of a field that I'm personally aware of and in which this kind of attitude should not be acceptable is cybersecurity. If your job is to protect people, then EVERYTHING you release has to be bulletproof.

As someone in cybersecurity, I would offer an alternate perspective: That sometimes you have to lock things down despite not being absolutely certain of side effects, being willing to take some outages, if you ever expect to get something done.

Analysis Paralysis is a real thing. Sometimes you just have to do it.

Choosing to lock things down when you're not certain of the side effects... that's the sort of thing that will, at worst, cause outages due to protocol access or authentication (which are both easily fixable). It's a smart move... and helps initiate the "Canary in the coalmine" built-in feature.

The "move fast and break things" crowd are generally the same people that will choose to open things up in the name of "getting shit done". They'll drop firewalls, expose services publicly, and generally go out of their way to avoid security because they see it as a hurdle to achieving their primary goal. In my experience, this lack of foresight almost always causes cascading problems in the future that grow exponentially worse the longer they're left unchecked.

People try to replicate what worked elsewhere without asking themselves if there any differences between the businesses.

That's normally a red flag, for a banking business a mortal sin.

How many times do ex-Googler's blindly parrot, "well at Google...", without asking themselves about exactly that?

Even worst, when wannabe-Googlers do that.

"Well at Google, they'd use a global distributed fault tolerant Hadoop cluster for their data store." "Dude??? We're building a Wordpress site. We're gonna run MySQL on the same shared server as the php code."