> They have blameless post mortems, but maybe "We actually do make mistakes so this practice is not good" wasn't a lesson anybody wanted to hear. Or they could

> They have blameless post mortems, but maybe "We actually do make mistakes so this practice is not good" wasn't a lesson anybody wanted to hear. Or they could say, "we want to continue to prioritise speed of security rollouts over stability, and despite our best efforts, we do make mistakes, so sometimes we expect things will blow up". I guess it depends what you're optimising for... If the rollout speed of security patches is the priority then maybe increased downtime is a price worth paying (in their eyes anyway)... I don't agree with that, but at least it's an honest position to take. That said, if this was to address the React CVE then it was hardly a speedy patch anyway... You'd think they could have afforded to stagger the rollout over a few hours at least.