I think this is you seeing the faults of other industries but being blind to yours.
No single person created the traffic jam "bug", the "users" are the biggest part. In many industries "the fix" isn't a few lines of code that you can one-click push to all users. You can't fix that traffic jam in code or even in infrastructure, you need to change society itself on top of everything else. It may not even be a defect as much as a supply and demand issue where supply is very scarce and impossible to ramp up, while demand is super high and growing. Cloud providers run out of capacity in some regions, their developers should be ashamed?
Software can be fixed quickly if broken. Capacity not so much. Software is also routinely launched broken, and subsequently stays in various degrees of broken or not usable enough throughout its lifecycle, with new and unpredictable issues replacing old ones.
If too many people wanting to drive a car in the same place, at the same time despite the predictable outcome due to the limited capacity is purely a failure of the city, country, road builder, then isn't a user not being able or not knowing how to properly use the software the fault of the developer? Is demanding more from the software than it can deliver the fault of the developer? How much cumulated time does this cost, sometimes for absolutely no reason whatsoever than an arbitrary decision of the developer?
You aren't "deeply ashamed" because you downplay the issues you (or your company) create as a developer and pretend they aren't problems for the users. A "part of human psychology" tells you 1000 smaller cuts are fine.
But people don't drive randomly. They drive in predictable locations where the city, county and country have decided they should drive. Building all the homes over there, building all the offices over here, and having the whole population go from there to here at 8-9 in the morning and back at 5-6 in the evening was not an individual choice. The government (collectively, all parts of it) made those choices for us. And if you think it's an individual choice to commute at all - consider that you'd get arrested if you slept on the street outside of your office.
It’s worse than that because let’s say you have people commuting to their office from a suburb and let’s say it takes an hour. So you increase the road capacity so it takes 30 minutes instead. This just lets people from even farther away to take 60 minutes to commute. This means the employers have access to more employees who live farther away and pay less in their cost of living. This means more business can open and more employees can be hired for overall less money. Overall the problem is that any time you increase capacity you are just inviting more cars.
Imagine if we did not have congestion control in TCP and instead every time we got congestion we just upped the bandwidth. Do you think at some point our ability to increase capacity would outpace the demand for what is for the most part a free resource (I know neither roads nor network badwidth are free but the cost is amortized such that it “feels” free to the users)? Or do you think demand would grow as fast or faster than capacity?
The real answer is to reduce demand. You can do this by introducing something like congestion pricing: make it expensive to use the resource when demand is close to capacity. Or you add some form of congestion control. For example you could dynamically set speed limits on secondary roads and when the freeway traffic flow slows down you slow down cars as they try to get to the on ramp of the freeway. Or you could raise the price of gas by $1/gallon to discourage car use and use the revenue to build more public transit. You could charge single person car use fees. You could keep roads free but make parking downtown extremely expensive and use the proceeds to build more public transit. You could reduce speed limits in the cities to no more than 10 miles per hour and strictly enforce that; obviously this only works if you have much faster and higher speed public transit: imagine choosing between buying a car, car insurance, gas, and still taking 3x as long to get to where you want to go compared to buying a $50-100 monthly pass and using public transit.
Define "not working". The one and only function of a road is to support the wheels on top of it. Are you saying that there's regularly cars falling through the asphalt, or cars veering off the road when they meant to go straight ahead?
Your car is the traffic on that road. Every system has limited capacity, you loaded it beyond that point, you are the problem. The roads are designed for an advertised capacity and more people like you said "it's fine, we'll all jam in there and then blame the road". Then you complain and point fingers at anyone but yourself?
You were talking about reasons to be ashamed? How about that as a developer you don't understand system design and capacity/performance limits, and you don't understand that intentionally loading a system beyond its rated capacity is not the problem of the system. Even an LLM knows that.
I bet you only build systems with infinite capacity and performance.
No single person created the traffic jam "bug", the "users" are the biggest part. In many industries "the fix" isn't a few lines of code that you can one-click push to all users. You can't fix that traffic jam in code or even in infrastructure, you need to change society itself on top of everything else. It may not even be a defect as much as a supply and demand issue where supply is very scarce and impossible to ramp up, while demand is super high and growing. Cloud providers run out of capacity in some regions, their developers should be ashamed?
Software can be fixed quickly if broken. Capacity not so much. Software is also routinely launched broken, and subsequently stays in various degrees of broken or not usable enough throughout its lifecycle, with new and unpredictable issues replacing old ones.
If too many people wanting to drive a car in the same place, at the same time despite the predictable outcome due to the limited capacity is purely a failure of the city, country, road builder, then isn't a user not being able or not knowing how to properly use the software the fault of the developer? Is demanding more from the software than it can deliver the fault of the developer? How much cumulated time does this cost, sometimes for absolutely no reason whatsoever than an arbitrary decision of the developer?
You aren't "deeply ashamed" because you downplay the issues you (or your company) create as a developer and pretend they aren't problems for the users. A "part of human psychology" tells you 1000 smaller cuts are fine.