It's similar to our networking lab where we generate bogus traffic using random src/dst IP addresses under the assumption that our null routes and firewall will block them from the real Internet. In this case, the provider just decided no firewall was needed. We can't use "fake" IP addresses (yes there are IP ranges for internal use but that doesn't work for certain testing scenarios.)
NASA for example has an _extremely_ tight tolerance on software specifications, testing, and proofs [1]. Medical devices and other core infrastructure also has very robust development cycles to ensure bugs don't bring down the power grid or overcharge someones heart in a pacemaker.
Meanwhile you can look at the auto industry and find example after example of shoddy engineering or manufacturing processes putting hundreds of thousands of drivers and families at risk. [2] [3] [4]
1 - https://www.nasa.gov/isd-robust-software-engineering 2 - https://news.yahoo.com/chevy-bolts-stressful-recall-16170005... 3 - https://www.consumerreports.org/car-recalls-defects/takata-a... 4 - https://www.cars.com/articles/explaining-the-toyota-floormat...
But every time proper engineering doesn’t happen, we see a subset of cries like this, like it’s some moral failing in the engineer. There are surely some chronically stupid engineers out there, but 99% of the time it’s a culture that has subverted the doers below the discussers and the deciders that leads to this shitshow of “how did this happen??”
There's also stories of architects designing buildings using "new and interesting techniques" with little to no testing. There's a story of one building that was lighting things across the street on fire because it was basically a big parabolic mirror.
And.. well.. the Boeing 737 Max.
So sure, engineers and related jobs are _better_ about it, but they're certainly not perfect. The still do stupid things. It's just less likely because the fields have been around for a long time and there's been time to learn the right ways to do things... and to learn the things that get people killed.
As the expression goes, regulations are written in blood... because new regulations come about when people die because of a gap.
I could understand if they were about 16 years old and actually abused by their employer, but generating random numbers to test the locking of phones? Basic maths should tell you that the probability of matching some real phone number is actually quite high.
Moreover, what exactly were they testing? i.e. if they were testing nonexistent numbers, then how would they even know the phones were blocked in the end?
Yeah well, the thing about pressure (of the sort the author has describing) is that you make mistakes - the kind where some times 3+3 = 9.
Source: I queued jobs to nuke the whole production database (relax, we had automated backups+verification so we recovered fast enough; and then added some gating so make this more difficult in the future)
I.e., the only thing they were considering was whether the number entered at the start of the test would show up in the right places at the other end of their system. They simply didn't consider that an actual phone would be shut off along the way.
I don't think they're even actually interested in programming and I cannot comprehend why they do it as a job or why they got hired.