3 ms·
> The response has been what's called "safety certification": This is the most scary part for me. Certifications are mostly bureaucratic sugar and on the other
by jand 2y ago
> The response has been what's called "safety certification":
This is the most scary part for me. Certifications are mostly bureaucratic sugar and on the other hand very expensive. This seems like a sure way to strangle your startup culture.
If customers require certifications worth millions, nobody can bootstrap a small business without outside capital.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 2y agoAssuming the level of certification will be proportionate the potential risk/harm, then this is actually totally ok. Like would you want to fly in a plane built but a bootstrap startup that had no certifications? Or go in a submarine to extremely deep ocean tours of the titanic? Or put in a heart device? Or transfer all of your savings to a startup's financial software that had no proof of being resilient to even the most basic of attacks? For me, its a hard no. The idea of risk/harm based certification and liability is overdue.
- mike_hearn 2y agoProblem is that it's rarely proportional. There's a different thread on HN about the UK Foundations essay. It gives the example of the builders of a nuclear reactor being required to install hundreds of underwater megaphones to scare away fish that might otherwise be sucked into the reactor and, um, cooked. Yet cooking fish is clearly normal behavior that the government doesn't try to restrict otherwise. This type of thing crops up all over the place where government certification gets involved. Not at first, but the ratchet only moves in one direction. After enough decades have passed you end up with silliness like that, nobody empowered to stop it and a stagnating or sliding economy. > Like would you want to fly in a plane built but a bootstrap startup that had no certifications? If plenty of other people had flown in it without problems, sure? How do you think commercial aviation got started? Plane makers were startups once. But comparing software and planes (or buildings) is a false equivalence. The vast majority of all software doesn't hurt anyone if it has bugs or even if it gets hacked. It's annoying, and potentially you lose money, but nobody dies.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 2y agoCommercial aviation was regulated because planes were killing people, and when it came in, air travel became the safest form of transportation. That isn't a coincidence. If the vast majority of software doesn't hurt anyone if it has bugs, then it won't require any certifications. If you heard me arguing for that, then you heard wrong. I am advocating for risk/harm based certification/liability.
- mike_hearn 2y agoAren't you arguing for the status quo then? There are very small amounts of software that can cause physical harm, and those are already regulated (medical devices etc).
- Eddy_Viscosity2 2y agoFinancial harm and harm via personal records being hacked should also be included. The Equifax leak for example should have resulted in much worse consequences for the executives and also new software compliance regulations to better safeguard that sort of record-keeping.
- pas 2y agoWhy aren't they installing grates on the intakes?
- mike_hearn 2y agoThere will be grates but fish are small and obviously grates must have holes in them.