[trafficante]

Your frustration is understandable, particularly in this situation where the critical failures weren’t the fault of outsourced engineers.

But we really need to pump the brakes on the whole “everything must be in the passive voice and overly euphemized to the point of nigh-incomprehensibility”. If anything, it contributes to the click-bait problem.

I see: “Boeing outsourced to $9/hr SWE” and immediately start thinking about a dangerous corporate culture that prioritizes profits over lives. I’d argue most people probably interpret the headline in a similar fashion.

Just because some already-inclined reactionaries wrongly jump to “India lol” doesn’t mean the publication has some moral responsibility to contort the headline into something less effective that will get even more dramatically outcompeted by click bait headlines that actually bait racists (“Deadly Boeing crash was running Indian software”).

[rramadass]

In this case the publisher has a responsibility to not throw shade at outsourcing since it was already known that it was not responsible for critical software implementation. Whether by accident or design a lot of folks will draw the inference that i pointed out. You can also look at the previous articles submitted on HN on this topic to see how everything gets manipulated.

Outsourcing is a perfectly logical approach to saving costs. But the company doing it has to be careful on how it does it, have necessary modeling/tests/verification/QC/QA in place and be very very careful in outsourcing highly critical/specialized/domain specific subsystems (if at all doing it).

From all that has been published on this topic so far, there seems to be a systemic rot in the entirety of Boeing Engineering and Management which needs to be investigated thoroughly as a whole rather than piecemeal i.e. focus on the system itself rather than the simple cogs in the system.