That is why I stand on the side of better law for company responsibilities.

We as industry have taught people that broken products is acceptable.

In any other industry, unless people are from the start getting something they know is broken or low quality, flea market, 1 euro shop, or similar, they will return the product, ask for the money back, sue the company whatever.

▲

zelphirkalt 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

There should be better regulation of course, but I want to point out, that the comparison with other industries doesn't quite work, because these days software is often given away at no financial cost. Often it costs ones data. But once that data is released into their data flows, you can never unrelease it. It has already been processed in LLM training or used somehow to target you with ads or whatever other purpose. So people can't do what they usually would do, when the product is broken.

▲

nananana9 7 hours ago | parent [-]

"Free" software resulting in your data being sold is the software working as intended, it's orthogonal to the question of software robustness.

Software isn't uniquely high stakes relative to other industries. Sure, if there's a data breach your data can't be un-leaked, but you can't be un-killed when a building collapses over your head or your car fails on the highway. The comparison with other industries works just fine - if we have high stakes, we should be shipping working products.

	▲	1718627440 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		"Free Software" means something, please consider using the terms gratis software or freeware/shareware instead.

▲

k4rli 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Imagining that the software will be shipped with hardware, that has no internet access and therefore cumbersome firmware upgrades, might be helpful. Avoiding shipping critical bugs is actually critical so bricking the hardware is undesirable.

Example: (aftermarket) car headunit.

▲

zeroCalories 7 hours ago | parent [-]

This type of testing is incredibly expensive and you'll have a startup run circles around you, assuming a startup could even exist when the YC investment needs to stretch 4x as far for the same product.

The real solution is to have individual software developers be licensed and personally liable for the damage their work does. Write horrible bugs? A licencing board will review your work. Make a calculated risk that damages someone? Company sued by the user, developer sued by the company. This correctly balances incentives between software quality and productivity, and has the added benefit of culling low quality workers.

▲

pjmlp 5 hours ago | parent [-]

The kind of relates to proper Engineering titles, unfortunely many countries don't have a legal system in place for those that decide to call themselves engineers without going through the exam, and related Order of the Engineer.

▲

zeroCalories 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I don't think titles are for anything besides establishing blame. If a company hires someone in a local where the engineer can't be held responsible, the executives and major investors should be held liable. That way things will naturally sort themselves out. Need something unimportant done? Offshore. Have some critical system? Hire someone that can take responsibility.

▲

pjmlp 3 hours ago | parent [-]

As we say back home, responsability should never die alone.

	▲	zeroCalories an hour ago \| parent [-]
		The easiest way to get away with murder is to split the blame such that no individual can be pointed to.