I agree. But if we don't manage it well at scale, that underscores that we don't really understand the complexity of the problem. Can you call someone a "top performer" when they don't understand the complexity of the problem?

We can write complex code with minimal errors[1].

"the last three versions of the program — each 420,000 lines long-had just one error each. The last 11 versions of this software had a total of 17 errors. Commercial programs of equivalent complexity would have 5,000 errors."

But I worry when we facilely normalize sub-optimal behavior because we've normalized it. Especially as FAANG and adjacent companies work on safety-critical software and when that attitude pervades other domains.

[1] https://www.fastcompany.com/28121/they-write-right-stuff