I did suggest all code has bugs (up to some limit -- while I wasn't careful to specify this, as discussed above, there does exist an extraordinary level of caution and review that if used can approximate perfect bug-free code, as in your malloc example and in the example of NASA, but that standard is not currently applied to 99.9% of human-generated and human-reviewed code, and it doesn't need to be). I did not suggest anything else you said I suggested, so I'm not sure why you made those parts up.

"Not all software needs meticulous careful human review" is exactly the point. The question of exactly what software needs that kind of review is one whose answer I expect to change over the next 5-10 years. We are already at the point where it's so easy to produce small but highly non-trivial one-off applications that one needn't examine the code at all -- I completely agree with the above poster that we're rapidly discovering new examples of software development where output-verification is all you need, just like right now you don't hand-inspect the machine code generated by your compiler. The question is how far that will be able to go, and I don't think anybody really knows right now, except that we are not yet at the threshold. You keep bringing up examples where the stakes are "existential", but you're underestimating how much software development does not have anything close to existential stakes.