> Incorrectness is simply not allowed. It’s pointless to try to get stuff done if you can’t guarantee the result is correct.

This is more nuanced actually. And it could have implications and contradictions with "get stuff done". IfI can have a non-provable piece of code that serves me well 99% of the time I could save coding time at the expense of correctness and could fit the bill for my use case.

Even academic mathematics and computer science work like that to a degree.

We get a lot of stuff done assuming P != NP, that no polynomial-time prime factorization algorithm for classical computers exists, that one-way functions exist, etc.

As long as assumptions are clearly stated and are routinely questioned it's fine to have them