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.