Ah OK! No, the top link seems to be the same as before.
My Scenario 1. wasn't about some rogue employee, only about unstructured development process, possibly even with no version control.
So there's this one developer that adds the shady code, asked by a higher-up, but other developers don't even know about it if they don't look into those files. And so no-one has a chance to analyze if it's safe to add the code.
Or maybe there's version control, but anyone can commit to `develop`. And so you see a weird commit from someone else, but that's it.
The only _maybe_ non-criminal but still very shady and unethical way to do it that I can quickly come up with, is if there was a formal process for adding those "hacks" would be to implement it as any other feature, perform a full safety analysis, etc., just as I can imagine it's done for regular stuff.
But then I cannot really imagine how I would answer the question about deliberately messing with train subsystems, in a train that could be running >100km/h, full of passengers...
My Scenario 1. wasn't about some rogue employee, only about unstructured development process, possibly even with no version control.
So there's this one developer that adds the shady code, asked by a higher-up, but other developers don't even know about it if they don't look into those files. And so no-one has a chance to analyze if it's safe to add the code.
Or maybe there's version control, but anyone can commit to `develop`. And so you see a weird commit from someone else, but that's it.
The only _maybe_ non-criminal but still very shady and unethical way to do it that I can quickly come up with, is if there was a formal process for adding those "hacks" would be to implement it as any other feature, perform a full safety analysis, etc., just as I can imagine it's done for regular stuff.
But then I cannot really imagine how I would answer the question about deliberately messing with train subsystems, in a train that could be running >100km/h, full of passengers...