6 ms·

To be fair maybe the software you write shouldn’t be relied on in critical situations but in this case the only place this software could be used in are critica

To be fair maybe the software you write shouldn’t be relied on in critical situations but in this case the only place this software could be used in are critical situations

viraptor 2y ago
Ultimately - yes. But as I mentioned, the fact it's sold as ready for critical situations doesn't mean the developers thought/said it's ready.
- elric 2y ago
  I think it should be fairly obvious that it's not the individual developers who are responsible/liable. In critical systems there is a whole chain of liability. That one guy in Nebraska who thanklessly maintains some open source lib that BigCorp is using in their car should obviously not be liable.
  - f1shy 2y ago
    It depends. If you do bad sw and skip reviews and processes, you may be liable. Even if you are told to do something, if you know is wrong, you should say it. Right now I’m in middle of s*t because of I spoked up.
    - Filligree 2y ago
      > Right now I’m in middle of s*t because of I spoked up. And you believe that, despite experiencing what happens if you speak up? We shouldn’t simultaneously require people to take heroic responsibility, while also leaving them high and dry if they do.
      - f1shy 2y ago
        I do believe I am responsible. I recognize I’am now in a position that I can speak without fear. If I get fired I would make a party tbh.
- gmueckl 2y ago
  But someone slapped that label on it and made a pinky promise that it's true. That person needs to accept liability if things go wrong. If person A is loud and clear that something isn't ready, but person B tells the customer otherwise, B is at fault. Look, there are well established procedures in a lot of industries where products are relied on to keep people safe. They all require quite rigorous development and certification processes and sneaking untested alpha quality software through such a process would be actively malicious and quite possibly criminal in and of itself, at least in some industries.
  - viraptor 2y ago
    This is the beginning of the thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41891164 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41891164 You're in violent agreement with me ;)
    - latexr 2y ago
      No, the beginning of the thread is earlier. And with that context it seems clear to me that the “you” in the post you linked means “the company”, not “the individual software developer”. No one else in your replies seems confused by that, we all understand self-driving software wasn’t written by a single person that has ultimate decision power within a company.
      - viraptor 2y ago
        If the message said "you release software", or "approve" or "produce", or something like that, sure. But it said "you write software" - and I don't think that can apply to a company, because writing is what individuals do. But yeah, maybe that's not what the author meant.
        latexr 2y ago
        > and I don't think that can apply to a company, because writing is what individuals do. By that token, no action could ever apply to a company—including approving, producing, or releasing—since it is a legal entity, a concept, not a physical thing. For all those actions there was a person actually doing it in the name of the company. It’s perfectly normal to say, for example, “GenericCorp wrote a press-release about their new product”.

To be fair maybe the software you write shouldn’t be relied on in critical situations but in this case the only place this software could be used in are critical situations

viraptor 2y ago

Ultimately - yes. But as I mentioned, the fact it's sold as ready for critical situations doesn't mean the developers thought/said it's ready.

elric 2y ago
I think it should be fairly obvious that it's not the individual developers who are responsible/liable. In critical systems there is a whole chain of liability. That one guy in Nebraska who thanklessly maintains some open source lib that BigCorp is using in their car should obviously not be liable.
- f1shy 2y ago
  It depends. If you do bad sw and skip reviews and processes, you may be liable. Even if you are told to do something, if you know is wrong, you should say it. Right now I’m in middle of s*t because of I spoked up.
  - Filligree 2y ago
    > Right now I’m in middle of s*t because of I spoked up. And you believe that, despite experiencing what happens if you speak up? We shouldn’t simultaneously require people to take heroic responsibility, while also leaving them high and dry if they do.
    - f1shy 2y ago
      I do believe I am responsible. I recognize I’am now in a position that I can speak without fear. If I get fired I would make a party tbh.
gmueckl 2y ago
But someone slapped that label on it and made a pinky promise that it's true. That person needs to accept liability if things go wrong. If person A is loud and clear that something isn't ready, but person B tells the customer otherwise, B is at fault. Look, there are well established procedures in a lot of industries where products are relied on to keep people safe. They all require quite rigorous development and certification processes and sneaking untested alpha quality software through such a process would be actively malicious and quite possibly criminal in and of itself, at least in some industries.
- viraptor 2y ago
  This is the beginning of the thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41891164 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41891164 You're in violent agreement with me ;)
  - latexr 2y ago
    No, the beginning of the thread is earlier. And with that context it seems clear to me that the “you” in the post you linked means “the company”, not “the individual software developer”. No one else in your replies seems confused by that, we all understand self-driving software wasn’t written by a single person that has ultimate decision power within a company.
    - viraptor 2y ago
      If the message said "you release software", or "approve" or "produce", or something like that, sure. But it said "you write software" - and I don't think that can apply to a company, because writing is what individuals do. But yeah, maybe that's not what the author meant.
      - latexr 2y ago
        > and I don't think that can apply to a company, because writing is what individuals do. By that token, no action could ever apply to a company—including approving, producing, or releasing—since it is a legal entity, a concept, not a physical thing. For all those actions there was a person actually doing it in the name of the company. It’s perfectly normal to say, for example, “GenericCorp wrote a press-release about their new product”.