There’s definitely plenty of survivorship bias in that argument - you’re making the argument that Meta could not have built successful products without also bui

There’s definitely plenty of survivorship bias in that argument - you’re making the argument that Meta could not have built successful products without also building a ton of unsuccessful ones, which they did by virtue of executing fast rather than slow/smooth. (I’m paraphrasing to try and ensure I’m understanding the argument correctly, just to be clear) The issue is that if you look at Meta’s successful products… 1. Facebook - would have won whether it moved fast or slow. This was network effects, not “features” 2. Messenger - has not won, and only exists because of Facebook’s aforementioned network effects. 3. Instagram - acquired. 4. Quest - acquired. 5. A bunch of other random shit nobody cares about and will never make Meta money. I can pretty much guarantee both FB and Messenger would be just as big as they are now if Facebook had “broken less crap.” Moving fast and breaking shit made working at Meta fun, not necessarily more productive, even if at times it felt more productive to the engineer, since they could push code faster.