Avoiding Death By Exposure

There's no such thing as a small bug. Customers, be they people or businesses, do not measure Software bugs in metres, feet or miles or kilograms. They use measures like time wasted, life-lost and money.

Take a recent bug from Facebook. It affected thousands, maybe millions of customers and the bottom line of companies (seemingly) unconnected with Facebook such as Spotify, Tik-Tok and SoundCloud, and probably countless smaller companies. So why did the journalist seem to think it was small?

Too often we judge the systems we create by how likely they are to fail, given our narrow view of the world. A better measure is our exposure when the systems fail. The exposure for Facebook is a greater motivation for other companies to disentangle themselves from Facebook's SDK, or promote a rival platform.

It doesn't matter if our bug is one tiny assumption or one character out of place, if it stops a million people from using or buying an app then it's a huge bug.

French revolution | Révolution française, Trois glorieuses, Révolution

We need a revolution in how we assess software testing costs.

By deciding to not invest in developing robust software and not test for bugs, we are increasing our exposure to harm. By just ticking off scenarios completed, you are not saving money; you are teaching customers and business partners that you are not reliable. That your data model isn't correct or that you’re not safe.

The costs you saved yesterday will be a tiny fraction of the money you lose in the longer term, it's just a matter of time. You can not calculate the mean cost of your app’s software development, because you don’t have all the costs. Your biggest costs will come later when your SDK fails, your game wipes people drives or your planes crash.

Measure your software’s quality by the exposure you have to failure, not the cost of man-hours spent developing and testing each feature.

Comments

What possible use could Gen AI be to me? (Part 1)

There’s a great scene in the Simpsons where the Monorail salesman comes to town and everyone (except Lisa of course) is quickly entranced by Monorail fever… He has an answer for every question and guess what? The Monorail will solve all the problems… somehow. The hype around Generative AI can seem a bit like that, and like Monorail-guy the sales-guy’s assure you Gen AI will solve all your problems - but can be pretty vague on the “how” part of the answer. So I’m going to provide a few short guides into how Generative (& other forms of AI) Artificial Intelligence can help you and your team. I’ll pitch the technical level differently for each one, and we’ll start with something fairly not technical: Custom Chatbots. ChatBots these days have evolved from the crude web sales tools of ten years ago, designed to hoover up leads for the sales team. They can now provide informative answers to questions based on documents or websites. If we take the most famous: Chat GPT 4. If we ignore the

Is your ChatBot actually using your data?

In 316 AD Emperor Constantine issued a new coin, there's nothing too unique about that in itself. But this coin is significant due to its pagan/roman religious symbols. Why is this odd? Constantine had converted himself, and probably with little consultation - his empire to Christianity, years before. Yet the coin shows the emperor and the (pagan) sun god Sol. Looks Legit! While this seems out of place, to us (1700 years later), it's not entirely surprising. Constantine and his people had followed different, older gods for centuries. The people would have been raised and taught the old pagan stories, and when presented with a new narrative it's not surprising they borrowed from and felt comfortable with both. I've seen much the same behaviour with Large Language Models (LLMs) like ChatGPT. You can provide them with fresh new data, from your own documents, but what's to stop it from listening to its old training instead? You could spend a lot of time collating,

Can Gen-AI understand Payments?

When it comes to rolling out updates to large complex banking systems, things can get messy quickly. Of course, the holy grail is to have each subsystem work well independently and to do some form of Pact or contract testing – reducing the complex and painful integration work. But nonetheless – at some point you are going to need to see if the dog and the pony can do their show together – and its generally better to do that in a way that doesn’t make millions of pounds of transactions fail – in a highly public manner, in production. (This post is based on my recent lightning talk at PyData London ) For the last few years, I’ve worked in the world of high value, real time and cross border payments, And one of the sticking points in bank [software] integration is message generation. A lot of time is spent dreaming up and creating those messages, then maintaining what you have just built. The world of payments runs on messages, these days they are often XML messages – and they can be pa

investigating software

Search This Blog