> Most software that requires hiring and paying software engineers has low risk tolerance:

I think a few of the industries listed like defense and aviation have low risk tolerance. However, from my (somewhat brief) experience of working in two health techs for a couple of years, I strongly disagree that healthcare has low risk tolerance for tech. Granted, they make run-of-the-mill CRMs, but I was baffled at how tolerable it is to have egregious user experience that makes users waste multiple hours per month with clerical work that is very painful because the UIs are very slow and buggy.

"Risk" has nothing to with designing functional and elegant UIs, so I'm not sure why you would even make the comparison.

It means risk that the software stops working after an update. Which usually trades off iteration speed and best practices (i'm pretty sure the average startup has way better security practices by just delegating to google/aws than the average manufacturing software business) in exchange for a rigorous testing and rollout schedule.

So I'm also not sure that the article has a point at all, the human writing the code was never relevant to avoiding the "risk" in these industries in the first place.