Oddly enough, your comment makes me think that you are writing it from the perspective of a member of the very group of programmers you decry. Companies that write high-risk, life-critical systems don't just let any ole J. Random Hacker work on such critical systems, and I don't think anyone who has worked in such a field would realistically think that these "brogrammers" as you say would be seriously considered for such a position. Companies don't play around with this kind of thing as failures are EXTREMELY expensive in terms of both funds and reputation.
Sure, but tests are only as good as the programmers that write them (and that's if those programmers are GOOD at writing tests, which is not universal). Not to mention no amount of automated testing is foolproof.
Full disclosure, I design and write system software tests for a living.
