&gt; People died.<p>I&#x27;m glad that you&#x27;re signalling that you didn&#x27;t carefully read the prose. From TFA, right below the offending photo:<p>&quot;In some ways it would be as funny to use &#x27;Let it Crash&#x27; for Erlang as it would be to use &#x27;Blow it up&#x27; for rocket science. &#x27;Blow it up&#x27; is probably the last thing you want in rocket science — the Challenger disaster is a stark reminder of that. Then again, if you look at it differently, rockets and their whole propulsion mechanism is about handling dangerous combustibles that can and will explode (and that&#x27;s the risky bit), but doing it in such a controlled manner that they can be used to power space travel, or to send payloads in orbit.<p>The point here is really about control; you can try and see rocket science as a way to properly harness explosions — or at least their force — to do what we want with them. Let it crash can therefore be seen under the same light: it&#x27;s all about fault tolerance. The idea is not to have uncontrolled failures everywhere, it&#x27;s to instead transform failures, exceptions, and crashes into tools we can use.&quot;