I think that's moving goalposts. The original post never talks about vibe-coding mission-critical software - and I wouldn't advocate for that, either. The post says that all vibe coding is fundamentally flawed.
That's fair, and I agree with you that the generalizations in the article's conclusion go too far.
I added the "remotely-mission-critical" qualifier to capture additional nuance. Tolerance for a low bus factor should be inversely correlated with a project's importance. That wasn't explicitly stated in the article, but it seems uncontroversial, and I suspect the author would agree with me.
