>The problem with the question “How did software get so reliable without proof?” is that it’s asking the wrong question. It’s not that software got so reliable

>The problem with the question “How did software get so reliable without proof?” is that it’s asking the wrong question. It’s not that software got so reliable without proof: it’s that systems that include software got so reliable without proof. No. This person isn't sounding smart enough. The real question isn't how systems that include software got reliable without proof but instead the reverse: how did software that includes systems get so reliable without proof? That's how you should conclude an article with some hand wavy technical jargon.