Buggy upgrades? I think it depends. If there's an updated iteration of a surgical tool or drug, it goes through a 3rd party vetting process, a significant porti

Buggy upgrades? I think it depends. If there's an updated iteration of a surgical tool or drug, it goes through a 3rd party vetting process, a significant portion of which is publicly transparent. There's a lot of shenanigans going on in OS upgrades under the disguise of, it's proprietary and no one has the right to see the code, as well as the EULA, as well as DMCA that'll prevent some forms of reverse engineering to find out what the changes entail. That doesn't necessarily mean open sourcing all software. But it does mean having some kind of transparent testability of inputs vs outputs, a statement of expected behavior, tolerances, and so on. But what we seem to tolerate in software these days is, "oh fuck that upgrade just fucked up everything" with very heavy weight recourse like rollbacks or reverting to backups. The problem with such regulation isn't the concept of regulating minimum quality standards in software, but rather the competency and delays in getting effective coherent legislation produced. It basically requires many people getting pissed to get a law passed, and that's not really the best way to set a standard is it?