Fortunately, Postel's law is not applied everywhere. Electrical deviations are formally specified so engineers design smaller error bounds, resulting in lower cost of the end-product (or lower weight and size). Your computer power supply will still produce magic smoke when connected to 330V or when subjected to strong fluctuations. The 'liberal' part is actually the 'strict' part: your electricity provider is obliged to provide you with an electric potential within certain boundaries.
The reasoning of the author is simple: we want a POC of an idea ASAP (lacking formal specifications of anomalies and error bounds) and when successful, error bounds and boundary conditions including specifications thereof should be communicated and implemented. That seems like a cogent and professional point to make, given the complexity of our systems.
Guess it could be a case of bad foundation, causing it to slowly sink into the ground over many years. Judging the type of ground of the excavation site at the photo, it seems to contain a rather high amount of clay, which is a terrible foundation.
Boulderdash. It completely depends on the kind of software system you are building. Do you need formal methods? Do you need complicated mathematical tests? Do you perhaps need to acquire patents or 3rd party software? Extensive domain analysis can take months, even years. Complicated systems can take years to design, implement and deploy.
It all depends on what you are making. So far, the startup world seems to be in a goldrush with devestating results (both for investors, as well as participants). The article is right: why are these developers not making better simulation software? Why are they not creating the next iteration of mission critical control systems? Two words: gold rush.
So, if you talk about 'a software system', you should specify the bounds. Failing to do this, I have no choice but to diagnose you with yet another case of Silicon Valley gold fever.
The reasoning of the author is simple: we want a POC of an idea ASAP (lacking formal specifications of anomalies and error bounds) and when successful, error bounds and boundary conditions including specifications thereof should be communicated and implemented. That seems like a cogent and professional point to make, given the complexity of our systems.