Yes, so it's a good thing the first step is:

> [Step 1] Question every requirement. Each should come with the name of the person who made it. You should never accept that a requirement came from a department, such as from "the legal department" or "the safety department." You need to know the name of the real person who made that requirement. Then you should question it, no matter how smart that person is. Requirements from smart people are the most dangerous, because people are less likely to question them. Always do so, even if the requirement came from me. Then make the requirements less dumb.

I REALLY doubt the recent high school graduates "yes boys" he brought in are even capable of providing the "name of the real person who made that requirement."

come on bro, you must know somewhere deep inside that this is more complex and consequential than fucking twitter of all things.

I know that the US government is more complex than twitter lol. I just think it's stupid to automatically invalidate an idea because it was used in a less complex system (especially when it worked lmao).

... and failed to turn that less complex system into a more profitable company

Unfortunately Twitter is now a machine that allows people to buy favors from the US government, so I expect it to become profitable pretty quickly.

Pretty messed up way for that to work out, though.

I invalidated it because it was tried and spectacularly failed in a complex system.

This is not quite as innovative as you might think, I guess you are advocating for the Chernobyl approach: "Let's turn all safety features off and see if it breaks!"

They turned off the safety features to test a safety procedure. I don't think it is a fair analogy.

They weren't testing a safety procedure, they were testing whether they could get rid of a safety feature. Specifically they were checking whether the plant's turbine could provide enough power to keep coolant flowing without the help of a counterweight system.

It's clear from the speed at which these changes are going in place that step 1 is not being followed, nor is it being encouraged.

> Requirements from smart people are the most dangerous, because people are less likely to question them.

This is just absolutely silly. What other reasonable ways are there to create requirements?