In a one-man business you have a complete view of everything. So you make endless decisions every day on what yo work on, and what can wait for tomorrow. Stude

In a one-man business you have a complete view of everything. So you make endless decisions every day on what yo work on, and what can wait for tomorrow. Students are a "one man business" in this respect. Complete autonomy. Completely independent success or fail. It's perhaps not surprising that this is the defacto world-view of most junior staff. In large organisations though, there's a lot more complexity. Actions have consequences, sometimes large consequences, and so you need to tread slowly and carefully. Most people don't have a big picture view, so, well, management. So, to your point, it's always good to squash bugs. But large organisations have to balance time squashing bugs, with time updating to a new compiler, with time to implement that new report Sales is waiting for to land a big new customer. In other words, there are competing interests and someone else decides what you work on today. That might be done really weird bug report. It might be some seemingly meaningless new feature. It might be to leave a bug in, because fixing it will have other negative implications. All this is prep to answer your question. As the Hacker News community ages, it becomes somewhat less interesting to discuss how a bug happened, or how to fix it, because that is just speculation with little to no useful information either way. Whereas viewing it from a "managers eyes" let's you start seeing it as part of a bigger picture. Why is it there? Why might fixing it be a low priority? (or more accurately, why is doing done thing else a higher priority?)