[simoncion]

> People died.

I'm glad that you're signalling that you didn't carefully read the prose. From TFA, right below the offending photo:

"In some ways it would be as funny to use 'Let it Crash' for Erlang as it would be to use 'Blow it up' for rocket science. 'Blow it up' 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'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.

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's all about fault tolerance. The idea is not to have uncontrolled failures everywhere, it's to instead transform failures, exceptions, and crashes into tools we can use."

[hubbins]

I read it. There are plenty of other examples to choose from.

[mononcqc]

I am open to suggestions so that I can modify slides for the (possibly) next times I end up giving a version of this talk.

[hubbins]

Do an image search for satellite rocket explosions. There are many.

[mononcqc]

Thanks. ended up going with Cygnus CRS Orb-3, which was a rocket failure, unmanned, and also has high res reusable photos. Text is unchanged, which I believe is fine in this context.