Every time peoples life, health and well-being depend on your action advocating for "move fast and break things" should be reason for immediate termination. The severance package can be negotiated later.
If you'd humor my extreme utilitarian view for a minute, I would argue both autonomous self driving and some medical endeavors could save many more lives if we, as a society, said "you get a budget of 10k. 10k lives you can severely negatively impact to deliver impact greater than that number" - basically giving you an investment/debt you repay to society via your future impact. Currently, traffic fatalities are at ~38k/year in the US (with over 2M/year injured), and the numbers for leading medical causes are staggering (heart disease ~700k/year, cancer ~600k/year, etc.). I would argue our current processes for breakthroughs in areas where health or safety are involved simply lean too far towards the "safe" end of the spectrum.
One anecdote I can share is a friend who worked for over a decade on a system where patients could buy a medical test at a pharmacy, take a urine sample at home, and get lab quality results using their phone's camera. The tech was ready in their first year of running. They built a suite of validations and tested things across hundreds of phone models, they really did their part well because they truly care. Getting things FDA approved and in patients' hands took much longer, because the processes are extremally slow and designed to reduce risk by almost all means necessary. While that's a good idea in theory, it didn't stop a scam like Theranos (because when you're intentionally dishonest rules don't always help), and it did make it so my friend's company took a lot longer before being able to get fast, accurate, test results for many different metrics to rural and poor communities where lab testing can be an issue...
The Max killed 346.
Theranos is directly related to 1 (Ian gibbons) but it is probable that the indirect number is much much higher. Between suicides for false positives, and lack of treatment for false negatives, there are significant outcomes.
Given that they delivered at least 150 000 incorrect results, I'm going to wildly speculate here that they are more deadly than Boeing.
Context matters. Good strategies for a social media company does not necessarily make it good advice for companies in another context. Turns out "breaking things" is not terribly good advice to airplanes or medicine.
Typically we empower governments with restraints to prevent them from allowing those tactics, and for good reason. (Even if in reality it is imperfect).
10k negative impacts multiplied by every startup, most of which will never get to the stage where they’re able to deliver their “benefit”, and even then, how do we quantify whether it was worth the cost?