It's a solid practice in UX design. Physically having to type or copy/paste it in really highlights the action for the end user. There's only so much you can do to stop people setting their own house on fire but something like that puts the onus on them and fairly places the blame where it belongs.
UX is not about putting the blame on someone, but to prevent errors. For this reason confirmations are not really the best practice. Sure, they reduce the number of mistakes by some margin, but they never get it 100%.
The better alternative will be instead of asking for confirmation to ask to explain the intent by picking one of the options or writing it down. Ideally, an alternative must be suggested. This will avoid automatic reaction, because there's no one clear path to the goal.
The problems start when you know you want to light a house on fire, but you pick the wrong house.
It's almost never the case that blaming the user is actually going to help nor that adding more eyeballs will prevent people from making mistakes. If it's routine, we'll apply it to the wrong entity. If it's not routine, we'll not understand all the implications of our actions.
Some actions have to be irreversible by design (think: emptying the trash to free up space on your drive, or deleting sensible user data). At some point, someone has to greenlight that action, and the best you can do is trying to ensure the user is aware of what they're about to do – and you have to trust that they're using their brain for once. You know, that thing in your head which distinguishes you from that thing sitting in the metal box under your desk... If it were possible to automate that decision in a flawless, 100% safe and correct way, there'd be no need for a human to press the button.
Life definitely has one-way gates, but tech can avoid them a lot more than we do today. Soft deletes and backups give a time-bound undo period to user actions, and so freeing up space on my drive isn't irreversible.
Also, to stretch the analogy I used further: one way to avoid lighting one's own house on fire by mistake is to not make the things you light on fire look like houses. In the case above, and in many other cases (like the big Atlassian outage earlier this year) the problem wasn't so much that the user was deliberately deleting important stuff, it's that they couldn't tell the difference between the class of unimportant things they thought they were deleting from and the class of important things they would stop and think long and hard about before deleting.
