I'm very interested in systemic solutions to problems. Blaming an individual when they make a mistake *feels* reasonable. When a significant percentage of people make the same mistake (70%, 2%, it doesn't matter as long as it is measurable, predictable and has a negative impact), then it's *not* a persons fault.
We know how to tackle those kind of problems: we change the environment to minimize the likelihood of mistakes. Traffic and pedestrian safety is an example of a well explored space where we know what works. Bollards, narrower streets, slower speeds, raised pedestrian crossings, providing good alternatives to driving to reduce traffic...
Similar in industrial spaces: clear signaling, segregate heavy machinery from human limbs, clear and practiced process to get out of dodge when things go poorly...
It's always about looking for solutions to eliminate mistakes, and when they can't be eliminated, minimize the blast radius.
This is why I like #Rust: it's a language and tooling that applies the industrial approach of "if two people make this mistake, figure out how to mitigate it".
We can't "individual responsibility" our way out of systemic problems.
I want more software with bollards.
@ekuber yeah but have you watched drivers on US streets?
@kdwarn I have, and I'm convinced that drivers would behave better if the infrastructure was built for safety. Streets where sideshows/street takeovers are possible are unsafe by design. Roads where the posted speed is 30 but that are designed for 60 are improperly built. Human nature is what it is, but we can nudge behavior.

@ekuber I mostly agree with what you’re saying, and think better design/constraints can nudge people towards better/safer behavior, but at the same time I disagree in that it seems there will always be a not-insignificant amount assholes who are unwilling to consider anything other than their supposed rights to do whatever the fuck they want.

Edit: probably easier with software, which is your main point anyway.