The problem is that this strategy is becoming more popular in physical product development, for things that we’ve known how to make for decades.

You don’t need to move fast and break things when you’re making a car. We’ve been making cars on assembly lines for a hundred years, innovation is going to be small.

Same thing for rockets. We put men on the moon 50 years ago for fucks sake. Rocketry is a well understood engineering field at this point. We know exactly how much force needs to exerted, we know exactly the stresses involved. You don’t need to rapidly iterate anything. Sit down, do the math, build the thing to spec, and it fucking works: see ULA, ESA, and NASA who have, all in the past few years, built rockets and had them successfully complete missions on the first launch without blowing up a bunch to “gather data”

Move fast and break things is for companies that have crackhead leadership who can’t make up their mind about what a product should do. It should have no place in real world engineering, where you know what your product is going to be subject to.

“Looks at SpaceX”, Iterate quickly and break things can work for rockets, it just depends on the development phase and the type of project. I wouldn’t “iterate quickly” with manned, extra terrestrial or important cargo missions.

But it can be used for the early development of rockets. Space X had a deep well of proven technology to draw upon during the development of the Falcon rocket. They put the tech together and iterated quickly to get a final product.

Blue Origin as well as the Artemis program both use traditional techniques with similar proven technologies. I’d argue they aren’t as successful or were never intended to be successful (Artemis is just a jobs program for shuttle contractors at this point).

It's no tits.

The update that broke everything only pushed data, not code. The bug was extant in the software before the update, likely for years.

A terrifyingly large number of critical issues come to light like this. The code has been broken since the first release, but nobody noticed until a certain edge-case occurs.

Well it isn't actually a confirmed case. Ruiu, the original person reporting the issue wasn't sure exactly what the surface area of attack was at the start. Ruiu Dragos, who is a security researcher believed it infected via speakers.

Eventually Errata CEO, Robert Graham, said that if he spent a year, he could build malware that did the same and that it was 'really, really easy'

Eventually, Ruiu noticed that the initial stage of infection was from one of his USB sticks.

The speakers part comes in that he found that the packets transmitted between badBIOS infected machines stopped if he disconnected the internal speaker and microphone.

Meaning, that sure, badBIOS may communicate data with each other via speakers but that it has never been proven that it could actually infect another machine via speakers. However, that hasn't stopped articles from conflating things.