We learned, what?
Not a bad article, though it may not really be answering any questions or even suggesting anything constructive and new: every professional designing software for life-critical use has known for-simply-ever that you expect, await and cater for the inevitable chain of screwups, misunderstandings, misapprehensions and carelessness that is the wont of busy and even clever people. The airline industry is probably the best modern example of how you learn from mistakes at the human-software interface. One thing that is clear from the article is that the system UI design was amateurishly and completely unfit for purpose.
But I do wonder whether the Reg's characteristically juvenile hyperbole helps:
" ... resulting in over a million people believing that they would shortly be hit by a nuke. ... The vast majority of Hawaiians are still unaware that it is a false alarm and are in panic mode."
Is any of that actually true, at all? Or would it be more accurate to say:
"The vast majoirty of Hawaiians were mildly perturbed to be told that the Norks were testing yet another missile, which, if the dummy warhead did make it across the Pacific, and if it didn't splash in the sea someplace—since no one really believes Fat Haircut Boy would be stupid enough to launch unprovoked nukes at US soil—might by accident, at the very worst, deposit half a tonne of warm tungsten fragments in a Cheesecake Factory car park."
So: did the breathless exaggeration make the story better?