I really do not think the programmers are the responsible in this case. I'm not sure, but for what I understood, it was not a failure in the SW, but a failure to explain the pilots the changes in the behaviour of the plane.
On whole failure of the goal. Change a plane in big way, but try to get it act like it did not change. To avoid explaining and training pilots. So instead of training pilots to expect plane to act certain way in certain scenarios, it was instead fixed in software and hardware. But well that combination was done poorly and it should have still been explained.
Don't your investors oversee cutting of corners like recycling old designs to the breaking point? Or hiding critical new workarounds in the shallowest possible training?
"the sole fiduciary duty is to deliver profits" is a reductive meme at this point. The problem is putting short-term over long-term, and that's a choice Boeing executives made. Of course the system incentivizes this, especially if you get away with it. But they didn't.
Most shareholders hardly have a say on how major public companies are run. Thr Only signal they have is by buying/selling stock or not even that if you only own your shares indirectly through an ETF.
