flyingswift

5 ms·

1. 31.▲
   by flyingswift 8y ago

   That is not at all what the memo says. "Direct code changes"
2. 32.▲
   by flyingswift 8y ago

   True. It's possible that the manufacturing software could be modified in some manner to introduce some fundamental flaw in the final product though. For that reason, I would say the code should also be held to a higher set of standards
3. 33.▲
   by flyingswift 8y ago

   From my experience on the O365 team, it would have been difficult to push code without approval because it would have voilated a number of the compliance requirements that area of the business has to meet. But yeah, I suppose there are othe
4. 34.▲
   by flyingswift 8y ago

   Ok, but we are trusting this 'young and rambunctious' company to produce software for self driving cars, where lack of appropriate policy controls could result in serious consequences if another "disgruntled employee" de
5. 35.▲
   by flyingswift 8y ago

   I made this same comment on the other discussion. I find it concerning that one person was able to push malicious code to 'production'. To me, this suggests that Tesla, a company building highly sensitive software, does not employ
6. 36.▲
   by flyingswift 8y ago

   Are we really saying that Tesla, a company building highly sensitive software, is not employing basic branch policies? How is it that these changes could have made it through a code review process and deployed to 'production'? Wha