The ratios seem unbelievable to those in tech, but I'm just saying you're unlikely to make it to 10 years without having at least the opportunity for some leadership.

Also 1 foreman in the electrical field runs effectively 50 guys max if good, and smaller sites might be 10 men to a foreman. I currently have 3 foreman running 5 to 6 guys each at my current company (2 close sites of 3)

10 years in you should be a foreman or something is wrong.

Architecture is not that; MEP trades aren't architecture. If she used prefabbed wall assemblies or didn't do her own structural for critical parts the analogy would hold (I so not know if she did or did not either way). Plumbing is a completely separate trade the way trading stocks is separate from computing; it just happens to live in the house.

is it? the example given for things implied to disallow are playful pinching/punching.

Even the author's implied choice of line is suspect here.

Just means you just pay out 1/10th as much per traffic; you already had some estimator for signal to noise measuring buying likelihood. It's just gonna drop

I don't think it's a flaw and throwing this away isn't worth a quarter of the hassle that comes with any enforcment implementation I can conceive of. Please think about what testing, safety, security is "enough", how you test it, and if it's worth the tradeoffs.

Who is at fault for code violations? The scope of software is generally too big that prearchitected designs don't work and you must assign life safety faults to a PE. Software doesn't work like that, it's not singularly done. You shouldn't need to file a permit for expansion to add a feature or plug a security hole.

You point to solar, but solar is less complicated than the things most of this website would deride as simple in software. The electrical codes. It has hardly changed at all since it's inception, and only inspired a handful (<12) of changes since the 2008 NEC. Most jurisdictions only update every 2 cycles or so, so we're talking 3 updates.

Move fast and break things is fine when it's okay to break things; software is fundamentally different than physical infrastructure and you paint with really broad strokes here when you just assert "need" and "right".

I work with building code every day and I fundamentally disagree that writing a "critical software code" would be net beneficial.

I work for an electrical contractor and I don't think being annoyed by shitty UI is nearly the same problem as electrical fires. Why govern the whole set of software with 1 set of rules?

Software isn't safety critical until it is, but we already have code to regulate software on electrical equipment, planes, etc. Why do you recommend software have a code? I'd much rather each individual thing that's safety critical have regulations around software in place than have to learn a 4000 page manual that changes every time you cross a jurisdiction, where enforcement varies, etc.

Software engineers can't even agree on best practices as is.

Imo, put the code around the safety critical thing (e.g. cars, planes, buildings). Restricting "critical" software will only get abused the way essential workers did during covid.

Also keep in mind the way buulding code gets enforced: you get an inspection upon completion or milestones. Software has a tendency to evolve and need maintenance or add features after; I don't want to trust this to a bureacrat. I don't like google or apple getting involved on "their platform" and I certainly don't want an incompetent government getting involved.

Before we have a software code, let's make and adopt some guidelines we can agree to. In construction, plenty of builders have their own sets of internal rules that are de facto codes. When one of those gets popular enough for life safety software, let's consider pushing for that.

I find this interaction is where my subagent ideas explode (not transferring enough data up and down)