It very much puts to shame conventional software practices for software assuredness. The fast company article mentioned seems to only glance at the level of complexity they employ to consistently obtain correct software.
P.S. I added a "bonus" at the bottom of the article, which was the first thing I remember that really frustrated me at the startup I joined.
Good luck with whatever you do next.
I'm not sure how you managed to draw that conclusion. His bonus point is that the CTO didn't even do work, that's hardly engineer-driven. And they had a Stanford MBA, who was apparently a drain during product development.
Most successful technology startups are engineer-driven. Google is the ultimate example of just how far a couple engineers can go without any "business sense".
I know the NASA thing was meant to merely underscore a point but I've seen this comparison so many times that it bugs me and I wish folks would stop using it. The average NASA sw engineer develops a ridiculously low number of lines of code a year (I think I read something like less than 100 ines). A 6000 line patch has 2500 page spec. The dynamics are vastly different than in any commerical software. A nice article on the process is here http://www.fastcompany.com/online/06/writestuff.html . Makes a good read.