Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Maybe the post title is inaccurate. The article title itself continues with "and a centuries-old British company ruined lives".

It wasn't a "bridge collapse" that caused anything. Yes the bridge sucked, but lots of bridges suck. It was human decisions that caused this, by using a bridge they knew (or could and should have known) was not fit for purpose. And by ignoring people who told them it was not fit for purpose after it was deployed. And the government not stepping in. And Association of Professional Engineers. &c &c &c. All of this is well documented.

That the initial mistakes were made was kind of ridiculous for lots of reasons, but okay, mistakes happen. But that it took 20 fucking years to correct while the faulty bridge continued to be used is just indescribable, and absolutely not the fault of any bridge but the result of human choices. That's the real problem; in an alternative universe people realized the bridge was a piece of crap shortly after being deployed, the mistakes were corrected, and they fixed it or stopped using it.

Humans caused the misery. Not the bridge. The bridge bit is almost a minor detail IMO. By framing it as "a bridge collapse" people will focus on bridge design to "fix" things, but that's not where things need to be fixed.

When will the software sector be regulated like other sectors?



>When will the software sector be regulated like other sectors?

But you just said the SW sector didn't cause this, it was those who ordered it and were responsible for managing the public service using it.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: