Essentially, @andreasklinger suggests that "The goal of a startup is not to validate as much as possible to be sure that you are on the right track. The goal is it to validate as little as needed."
I am having trouble with the notion he puts out that all you are meant to do is make sure you are not doing the wrong thing, as a founder. So in science-speak, You don't have to prove the hypothesis is right, you just need to prove its not wrong.
The premise for not going down the route Lean methodology suggests of constant validation is that it takes too much time, and too costly and its easier to prove something wrong than right.
Founders inherently do have bias, which I agree with, but at the end of the day, you need to prove something is wrong, as well as prove something is right. When you seek to raise capital in a series, especially if you aren't showing revenue, you need to prove to those who are forking out money that how you think people work, is in fact how they work, and you know what they need.
If as a founder you are too stubborn to put aside your bias, or you are going to interpret statistics in your favor, only to dupe the investors, then you will get caught out at in the end. Noisy data, biased data, is a result of broken Customer Development, not because the idea of Customer Development is broken.
You need to ask the right questions, observe the right people, and do so continually. The point the writer is making that it costs too much is also something I especially disagree with. This is done concurrently, on conjunction with other development efforts, and can be used as a point of pivoting, or to double down with assurance that what you are working on is in fact promising.
Believing what Andreas has wrote as an anti-pattern, I can state that finding out the good rather than the bad can also uncover new and interesting pains that you can address, rather than just letting you know if you are on a collision-course. By continually, within your capacity take time to talk to people, get the good as well as the bad, you can manage time-cost factors with customer development, whilst always keeping your head on the ground. if you just go for the negative validation, to validate that you are not wrong, then who's to say that's not biased and broken in itself.
Process v Principles
Okay, the other point Andreas was making is, of lean startup being a cult following rather than a tool-bag, well not all screws fit all screw-drivers. There are many variables in a team, in a project, in an environment that can challenge your notions and perceptions. Blindly following as a religion Lean Startup, as a Lean Lurker isn't great, and does not account for the dynamic nature that is reality. The tool isn't broken, but just like anything, can be mis-used.
Instead, I consider it a framework, it exists and can be augmented and adjusted to your needs. Rather than following it, you need to understand it, and why you should or not use certain processes, and when.
Lean Startup and enterprise
I don't think Lean Startup is lost on enterprise either. Enterprise teams need to be more agile and run with more validation, rather than say this is something just for small companies with not a lot of money. Lean should be part of every company, and more-so, lean startup encompasses so much more, from just gauging the right customers for feedback, gauging the right analytics that matter, and lean marketing.
It's a conscious evaluation of your practices, a philosophy, so you cannot blindly say that lean startup should change or cut to fit, but rather, those using it should be smart enough to apply the features smartly.