This is debatable. Perhaps the poor quality management issues and lack of rigour that have been seen in various Boeing production facilities are a case of normalization of deviance. However, the original problem with the 737 MAX was the top management decision not to invest in a new airframe design for cost/strategic reasons, to oblige designers to implement various unsafe workarounds to accommodate larger and more fuel-efficient engines that made the plane unstable, and to ruthlessly silence engineers who argued that this was unsafe. This problem was compounded by the FAA's move to increased delegation of safety oversight to designer-manufacturers, which left it with insufficient ability independently to assess the new design. These are both big, important decisions made by top leaders of the two organizations, rather than the slow progressive evolution driven by people's efforts to optimize their bit of the workplace which characterizes drift to danger.

I did not have BDSM rope bondage in mind when I wrote that article, but nice to know that these concepts can be roped in more widely than anticipated!

"Being cheap" is a pressure from management to increase production in order to avoid economic failure. "Being lazy" is an effort from frontline workers to improve efficiency and avoid being swamped by production demand. One of the points of the diagram is that these partially cancel each other out, but the net effect of the addition of these two "vectors" is to push the system towards the failure boundary.

It seems that there is some missing tooling to make this convenient.

You can run a local bundle of HTML/JS/WASM in a web browser instance that you isolate (for example with firejail) to prevent network access. You distribute as a zip/tgz, but it's not obvious how to handle updates without a full redownload. Distributing with a full Electron-like interface is obviously overkill.

If you're running a web app that's hosted elsewhere (which will be much more convenient for most people), your web browser or the software isolation functionality (or firewall/proxy) needs to distinguish between the initial resource loads (approve) and later sneaky logging requests (ban).

There are Android applications such as TrackerControl that have related functionality (operates as a local VPN to filter all network requests and block tracking) but I don't know of convenient tools for the desktop (Linux, in particular).

Sure, but these types of applications are running in a web browser sandbox, which benefits from enormous engineering resources to protect the host computer from malicious actions by the remote code. I'm wondering whether this execution environment (augmented with some policy mechanism to allow apps to declare their URL access needs, a little like an AppArmor or network firewal policy) could also provide some guarantees concerning privacy or information security.

Historically, the fact that lives of the public are clearly on the line was part of the argument for allowing partial delegation of safety oversight. The idea has been that any engineer/manager making these decisions will be regularly flying themselves/loved ones, so is going to be suitably cautious. This differed from the situation in coal mines for example, where the miners exposed to the risk were socially/culturally disjoint from engineers/managers.

There are several good reasons for allowing it. One is that it's difficult for a public inspectorate/regulator to maintain the necessary levels of expertise to assess such complex systems (and increasingly so with technological progress). Furthermore, people working inside the industry have much better access to information about the risks than an outside inspector has.

A second reason is simply costs to the public. In 2019, the interim FAA director Dan Elwell testified to the US Senate after the 737 Max disasters that bringing all delegated oversight back into the FAA would require 10000 extra staff and USD 1.8B in costs. There are fairness/democratic arguments to having the costs borne by the industry (and thus indirectly by the privileged portion of the taxpayers who consume air traffic) rather than by all taxpayers.