devil's advocate: what's are the costs to the users / customer / business if defects are shipped? how does that compare to the value of rapidly adding new f

devil's advocate: what's are the costs to the users / customer / business if defects are shipped? how does that compare to the value of rapidly adding new features? if the cost of shipping defects is much lower than the value of shipping new features, and it costs a lot of money to change the process or tooling or product to reduce the defect rate, then one approach could be to not attempt to further reduce the defect rate and accept the current rate that defects get shipped. in some contexts a high (or even low) defect rate is completely unacceptable, the cost of a major defect can be ruinous to users / customers / the business --- e.g. if defects in the product can kill large numbers of people, or if defects would cause a giant batch of cash trapped in manufactured hardware products to be recalled, or if defects could cause the company to lose money very very quickly (c.f. the knight capital automated trading feature flag thing). but many contexts aren't like this at all.