This article is standard punditry of false dichotomies and excluded middles to frame an argument in a manner that assumes the outcome the writer wants to lead y

This article is standard punditry of false dichotomies and excluded middles to frame an argument in a manner that assumes the outcome the writer wants to lead you to. I was expecting better to be honest. The problem with 'move fast and break things' is that when we are talking about real lives and real consequences then then things that tend to get broken are other people. Make no mistake, it is always 'other people' that pundits like this are talking about. They are never going to pay the costs of the negative externalities, it is always going to be someone else's life, someone else's child, someone else's home, neighborhood, or vocation. If someone like this author was actually interested in working to fix the problem they would start by trying to provide regulators with the resources they need to actually keep up with a fast changing world filled with tech-bros out to 'disrupt' any industry where they think they can make themselves a middle-man in a transaction. Make it interesting and worthwhile for smart people to work on improving the regulatory process and adapting it to current realities and maybe we can start to make progress that is both rapid and safe.