Classifying formal methods as a 'fear response' strikes me as asinine in the same way that calling safety belts a fear response would be. If it's software where failure can cause a lot of damage, why wouldn't fear be a natural response?

Frankly, I'd be outright horrified if say the people responsible for autonomous driving weren't anxious about mistakes, since I'd either have to assume that they just didn't care or - perhaps even worse - do not realize the potential consequences of their actions.

> development is 'fear driven development' for quite a while now.

Do you have examples of fear-driven and non-fear development approaches? And what flavors of "non-fear" development are possible?

Yea dude it's supposed to be a fun learning experience. We got into software so we wouldn't have to work, not to be driven and crunched to death by self serving management culture.

Look at all the early software pioneers do they look like they were suffering from constant anxiety vis how productive they have been for decades?

Consider the moive "Silence of the Lambs": Lecter was able to get his cell neighbor to swallow his own tongue just through his powers of persuasion.

I think he's saying there is no such thing as "non-fear-driven development".

> Conway's law expanded to how you communicate with yourself.

Can you please clarify?

Not OP, but I’ll give it a go:

Conway's law is an adage stating that organizations design systems that mirror their own communication structure.

In a sense, your own self is an organisation whereby we communicate with ourselves in fearful and anxious ways, so the systems we build can only be a reflection of that fear and anxiety.