> Engineers don't assess every molecule of the materials they construct bridges out of. Doesn't mean they're not accountable when one collapses.

If it's something completely unpredictable then, no, they're not generally liable. It's called an "act of god" and you'll find that language in virtually every contract.

> Also, your saying doesn't mention anything about people who point out to others who should be stoned. I'm assuming that's okay, as well as letting people know what they did that would deserve a stoning. Just in general, not advocating anyone be stoned.

I have absolutely no idea what your point is here.

It would take a software engineer to have the ego to imply that a bug in their code was "act of god" :)

Parent wasn't lobbing stones, just pointing out that we are responsible, if not culpable, for the results of the development decisions we approve and commit. A library was used that wasn't fully reviewed, vetted, or corrected prior to use. It's like buying rivets and not inspecting them before you build a skyscraper with them - even if nothing comes of it, was no wrong done?

Airplanes most definitely have thoroughly audited and certified code used in the onboard systems.