> When a button breaks on a website, I have a model about what should have happened. Somewhere a contract got broken. [...] I might not have access to debug just an HTTP status 500, but I expect there to be somebody whose job is to understand why the endpoint is 500ing. The ownership is well-defined albeit opaque³.

> For many users, however, the actual experience is roughly just "stupid thing sucks." Software already feels capricious; more failures just change the rate of frustration.

I am betting author does not use cloud services much. It is not just "users", it's developers as well. Github is returning 5xx? AWS service does not work? Your email did not get delivered? Nothing we (developers) can do, "stupid thing sucks".

Excellent post. People always defend agentic/LLM-driven development by saying, "Well it's good enough", or "It works most of the time."

That may be tolerable for some user-facing app. But what if we start normalizing failures in the libraries, the infrastructure, and the compilers? Everything descends into a mess of unreliability, and that slows EVERYTHING and EVERYONE down.

> This leads to a normalization of inexplicability.

It’s also tightly connected to a normalization of lack of accountability.

> This isn't "getting an FTP account, mounting it locally with curlftpfs, and then using SVN or CVS on the mounted filesystem" -- you still have to do the hard part.

This is probably losing the younger portion of the audience by now. ;)

The "normalization of inexplicability" is indeed infuriating. It has always been bad when it comes to computer software, and it's increasingly creeping into other consumer products that depend on embedded software.

I bought a new electric car recently. For the most part I've been quite happy with it. Shortly after I bought it, it started popping up a warning message saying "check EV system" every time I started it. By the time I brought it into the dealership, the warning had gone away, and the technician just told me something to the effect of "eh, I guess it just does that sometimes, let us know if it happens again." Hardware fault? Software bug? Who can say?

Like most modern cars, it has connectivity and Google Maps built into the infotainment system. The vast majority of the time, it works fine. Sometimes it says it has no connectivity (meaning no traffic data and suboptimal routes) for the duration of a drive, even in areas with a strong cell signal where it normally works fine. Sometimes the car says it has connectivity, but Google Maps still thinks it's offline. Sometimes Maps will actually load and display a route, but the "start navigation" button just spins forever as though it's still waiting for something. Are these related issues? Is there a common cause that might be fixable? Who can say?

(Conveniently enough, the warranty specifically does not cover any failures of software or firmware to operate correctly.)

If you spend more time with a product, you’re more likely to choose to do it again, even if it’s because of failure or annoyance. You’d justify it somehow (I have a leg up now or something). This actually applies to looking at things as well; a brightly colored box on the supermarket shelf is simply more likely to be chosen because you look at it first and longer.

Wasting your time and resources is a power signifier, but getting you to waste your own time and your own resources is hegemony.

It frustrates me quite a bit that the best solution to many issues is "Just try again tomorrow", trusting that the problem occurring on Azure is caused by some obscure backend service being down six timezones from our office, and the thing™ will start working again in a few days when Microsoft fixes said backend service.

This is the problem building "it does everything" machines.

If you are pitching that your service can do potentially "whatever the client wants" you have such a thin basis on which to provide contracts and guarantees as a provider. The narrower the function, the clearer you can be about what's supposed to happen and why things might have gone wrong.

When you're using probabilities as the fundamental approach to computation, all of that goes out the window. Nondeterminism is powerful because it's insanely flexible, but the cost of that flexibility is predictability and expectation. Determinism was humanity's primary choice for formalisms and technology precisely because it reduces complex problems and situations to repeatable mechanics that are easy to understand. Deterministic tools can't do a lot in the grand scheme of things, but it is precisely these limitations that make them work well in concert and keep them comprehensible.

Why is the author pretending that it is only now that inexplicable failures are "being normalized"? They've been normal ever since this industry has existed.

Literally go no further than the age old advice of "have you tried turning it off and then back on again?".

Did this person never experience the effects of rocking the boat just a little too much? Daring to do a little too good of a job? How?

Another of the ways that software "engineering" is drifting even further away from traditional engineering. Failure mode analysis? Root cause analysis? I have no idea, I just talk to this magic box.