I'm surprised with comments that puts all the blame on the investor and make the impression that authors never do similar things (rely on systems they don't ful

I'm surprised with comments that puts all the blame on the investor and make the impression that authors never do similar things (rely on systems they don't fully understand). The thing is, software is all around us, some is more or less harmless (web browser) and some can create a lot of damage (self driving car, buggy aircraft controller, bank software). The thing is that we generally have absolutely no clue what is the quality of the piece of the code that is controlling our destiny right now. What if the airplane we are flying right now decides to dive? What if bank looses all our record? What if Nest thermostat goes crazy and burns thousands of dollars on heating during your vacation? What if your 401k disappears because of the obvious bug in the bot's script? I can go on and on. To be able to live in this world without going nuts we have to trust that those systems are correct and if something goes wrong we do need a legal way to punish responsible party (if there is a fault on their side). The weird thing is that we still treat software and real engineering differently. If you enter the bridge that collapses under you feet because it is a bad design - you will sue. But if you trust a company that sells a superhuman trading bot which makes silly decisions and loses your money -> it is your problem. Following this logic - don't step on the bridge without reviewing the design and making sure it is safe.