Well, sure... but that should occur after you've made the conscious decision that that's the appropriate action.
I think the prevailing theory is that if the situation warrants drawing a pistol and pointing it at a perceived threat, the conscious decision should be "point gun at threat and be ready to fire", not, "when should I fiddle with the safety, and where is it on this gun again?"
In, the op talked about for example " chambering a round, hammer back, no safety on, holstering it, and going about their day".
And I gave a fairly long explanation of why that isn't done with most single action pistols (specifically, that the adjustment to trigger pull needed to balance out the safety equation is seen as increasing risk without removing a significant offsetting negative).
I was specifically replying to something someone said in the thread, not the OP. We were talking about hypothetical momentary safeties (that must be held in place continually, as seen on most power saws), and I was pointing out that - just like the manual safety on a 1911 - the response would be to adjust training to prevent that from slowing response time.
And that's where what I said dovetailed into the OP's question: with sufficient training, the cost of disengaging a manual safety is very hard to measure..you don't need to wiggle your thumb around or look at a safety lever, it just happens because you want it to happen and muscle memory takes over. It is no more difficult or time consuming than engaging an implicit safety such as a trigger blade safety or grip safety.
If a practice doesn't gain you anything, but does cost something (either greater risk, or the need to increase trigger pull) that's a bad trade.
You decided that I must mean
take the safety off before the gun leaves the holster, then be sure to sweep a leg or something, and maybe wave it around with a finger on the trigger or something and went on the attack, but you were completely off base.
I never said 'insufficiency' or 'lack of training' either
"...then that is not sufficient training.", ...I would say that's not sufficient training."
"Not sufficient" = insufficient = lack of enough (sufficient). So yes, you did say it several times. And yes, I get that you were trying to say that it was "wrong rather than sufficient", but when you repeatedly say something is not sufficient you are asserting a lack even if you also think what there was was incorrect. If it was simply a matter of the kind of training you would say "sufficient training for the wrong action", and if the criticism was quality of training you might say, "maybe a sufficient amount, but not a sufficient quality."