fix typo (#635)

Author: jyecusch

docs/get-started/foundations/deployment/index.mdx

@@ -63,7 +63,7 @@ It also significantly reduces the burden of writing project-specific Infrastruct
 
 The details above are true in the general case, but Nitric is extremely flexible.
 
-For example, you could build a provider that doesn't use a runtime adapter and have your applications continue to use the cloud SDKs directly. This could be useful if you prefer not to abstract the cloud services or you want Nitric to just managed the deployment process.
+For example, you could build a provider that doesn't use a runtime adapter and have your applications continue to use the cloud SDKs directly. This could be useful if you prefer not to abstract the cloud services or you want Nitric to just manage the deployment process.
 
 Alternatively, you could build a provider that doesn't deploy your application at all, but instead generates a report of the resources required to run your application and their relationships. This could be useful for auditing or cost estimation. It could also be useful if you prefer more human control over the deployment process. At least you'll know a requirement is never missed.