A paragraph by paragraph "dumbed down" translation of your original words would be pretty neat to have for starters. Both to understand what you mean but also to understand the lingo.
The "but verify" here is the difficult bit. Calibrating the verification frequency and intensity is the art of balancing micromanaging vs disengagement.
The reality is you verify by being more hands on than you or your report want to in be long term - but a good manager explains what you're doing and that it is time limited intensity to build trust.
I think it requires a certain definition of "lazy" that basically translates to "delegate everything you possibly can" - which we all know can be hard work in itself.
I think his point is that even with the current levels of vigilance and competence (which unarguably can and should be improved) the actualized impact was "minimal".
In other words, the expected scale of "disaster" here matters when assessing risk vs current operational fitness.
That's not large in this context. It would need to be large enough to cover several thousand pounds of legal defense fees to investigate and argue against the claim. So at least several tens of thousands of dollars.
Source: been through insurance claim on a business that burnt to the ground with months of finished product stock (and which our accountant had accidentally under-insured. Very painful!)
Please don't let these rather aggressive comments from Ruminator and others stop you commenting.
You put forward perfectly reasonable observations and it is frustrating when someone tries to silence others using the appalling Credentials Fallacy.
It is perfectly logical to say at the macro level our "take risks, move fast" strategy will produce more failures, whilst at the micro level being very disappointed at each failure.
Now, if this was a manned mission with life at stake I would expect the risk approach to be modulated accordingly. But even so, astronauts are not civilian passages and even they knowingly embrace flying at high risk. It would be interesting to know how (and if) SpaceX has approached derisking manned flight. Because the PR from blowing up humans is not good whether you're NASA or a private company.
I know this is a meta-comment but I thought this was a wonderful exchange - a misunderstanding was explained clearly and respectfully and then acknowledged accordingly. A great example of the maturity of the readership here, which is refreshing to see for someone relatively new to HN. Kudos to you both.