Software simply mirrors the development of modern society. Highly complex and relying on countless abstractions to tame that complexity and be able to operate.

Software simply mirrors the development of modern society. Highly complex and relying on countless abstractions to tame that complexity and be able to operate. This design is sort-of working under plain sailing conditions (lots of available resources, booming markets, peaceful cooperation). But it is very non-resilient under stress (subdued expectations, broken promises, resource scarcity, hostility and strife). Remember the pandemic? It was painful lesson and we like to forget pain. But it was an instance of our abstractions failing at a global and systemic level. Broken supply chains, panic, implosion. Thankfully it wasn't the worst kind of negative development but it shows that in the way we design essential pieces of the economy we are basically simply ignoring entirely plausible scenarios. Now, how are we to respond to this momentous challenge? We can't go back to some low-tech autarky. People cannot build and program their own silicon from ground up (though it would be really cool to be able to do it at least as a proof-of-concept). The gist of the right approach seems to me is to make sure that abstractions are tethered. If you need dozens of pieces to be in place to deliver something, the combinatorial possibilities of some of them not being available grows exponentially. If you need the latest and most expensive gear to operate this means the long tail of humanity is left behind. Another analogy might be the drastically different structures you can build out of carbon atoms. You can have graphite layers that peel off at the slightest pressure or you can have diamonds that are the hardest of them all. The difference is the more connected nature of the diamond lattice. The different abstractions should be really fitting together very tightly with strong bonds. Don't be like graphite, be like diamond :-)