>For software used by regular people who do not know anything about software and shouldn't have to... Yes (aka kill the makers with regulations)"
That doesn't make sense. Even the big browser makers have beta-versions clearly marked as experimental. If someone is so dumb that they don't understand simple warnings and disclaimers, that's their problem and nobody else's.
"Don't use if dumb" is the only warning that regulators need to require. The regulator should pay to the maker for all other compliance measures, otherwise regulations become only a source of oppressive power and picking winners and losers. "Only" because they do not increase software security in any meaningful way.
That doesn't make sense. Even the big browser makers have beta-versions clearly marked as experimental. If someone is so dumb that they don't understand simple warnings and disclaimers, that's their problem and nobody else's.
"Don't use if dumb" is the only warning that regulators need to require. The regulator should pay to the maker for all other compliance measures, otherwise regulations become only a source of oppressive power and picking winners and losers. "Only" because they do not increase software security in any meaningful way.