I agree with you that it's arrogant for someone in a specialty to expect everyone else to invest into their specialty. I see this all the time from business ini

I agree with you that it's arrogant for someone in a specialty to expect everyone else to invest into their specialty. I see this all the time from business initiatives saying that we need to integrate time tracking into the culture to make one teams job easier, everyone should learn security, accessibility, performance, compliance, internationalization. We should design for all of these things from the start and also deliver an MVP by the date that the sales person sold it for. If software forced all instances of object lifetimes which weren't a tree with unique owners to be painfully against the grain, then you'd make a good deal of progress. If your primitives acted on whole data structures rather than individual elements, you'd made a good deal of progress. E.g. 1. Partition this set of http requests by method. 2. What capabilities are available to this group of credentials? 3. Give me the set of k different fields which have the newest timestamp on their relevant keys but aren't in this blacklist. If we made our password requirements to start with not being crackable with some basic software, you might not need rotation policies and strength requirements. The easy answer is to say that everyone should participate and that many hands make light work. And it's tempting because performance certainly can hit a state where you have to make an architectural change to meet your requirements. (Presumably for other specialties as well) Having an expert do it also doesn't work because that can be adversarial.