Eh, you'll have an annoying time putting a man on the moon with that attitude. But hey, your twitters will hockeystick better!
It all depends on your problem domain--the cost of failure for certain things (pacemakers, telco software, car engine ECU code, and so on) may be much, much greater than the cost of being super retentive in your development.
Yes, it depends on the domain but outside a few industries (and low-level code) software isn't a life-or-death matter.
Infrastructure is a different kettle of fish, while it might sometimes be a life-or-death matter, generally it's just safer to seek pure robustness here: monopolies with government connections do not need to fear losing competitiveness since they can (a) manipulate the rules of the market, and (b) bind market players with contracts.
I don't like your insinuation that I'm just talking about cool hockey-stick startups; in the domains in which non life-or-death, free-market business and software colide, losing competitiveness/product-market fit is the central failure mode. And you absolutely cannot become robust against the market. You must either (1) become faster than the market, or you must (2) control the market.
True indeed but the initial comment of 'It's better to do the wrong thing quickly.' was stated without nuance or caveat so the reply rightly pointed out that this statement is true in certain domains and completely false in others.
It all depends on your problem domain--the cost of failure for certain things (pacemakers, telco software, car engine ECU code, and so on) may be much, much greater than the cost of being super retentive in your development.