I can't read that article, but I'm assuming (hoping?) that even if the software is flawed, there's still clarity about which source code / build configuration is installed on a given plane.

Contrast that to the allegedly faked test results, and known defects, of the planes' physical characteristics.

The source article was talking about how their software practices were so bad they’d hire $9/hr engineers to work on core avionics stuff.

As for your point: There’s not much contrast. MCAS was software, after all.

Only upside to software is because it can be updated (maybe), it’s at least more likely to be fixed instead of covered up.