3 ms·

> but let me not even count the ways in which software has failed me. Failed you? This sounds either very entitled or sensational. Has software caused you majo

> but let me not even count the ways in which software has failed me. Failed you? This sounds either very entitled or sensational. Has software caused you major grief in any way financial or the loss of limbs or loved ones? While this happens, very few people are affected by bugs in such a way, at least confirmed.

Nicksil 6y ago
>Failed you? This sounds either very entitled or sensational. Has software caused you major grief in any way financial or the loss of limbs or loved ones? While this happens, very few people are affected by bugs in such a way, at least confirmed. Many people have been significantly affected by software bugs. Therac-25[1] is one I constantly remind myself of; it killed 5 people. Here's a list for further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_software_bugs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_software_bugs I'm not sure what your definition of "very few people" is but we'd all do well to aim for 0 adversely-affected people as a result from using software we write. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25
- erikbye 6y ago
  Read my reply again, note especially the part "While this happens". Obviously I am acutely aware of what you are saying, no matter how many Wikipedia articles you link, so your comment is not only superfluous but also makes no sense, as I was asking OP if he was personally affected in such a way because he seemed bitter. Your reply does not answer this, and you should let him answer for himself. > I'm not sure what your definition of "very few people" I think my definition is about the same as every accepted definition of "very few", the number of people affected by such bugs falls within this definition, considering how many users software has. > Many people have been significantly affected by software bugs. Therac-25[1] is one I constantly remind myself of; it killed 5 people. 5 does not fit the definition many in anyone's book.
  - a1369209993 6y ago
    > 5 does not fit the definition many in anyone's book. Well, IIRC, there's Watership Down, a literal book, but I assume you meant that figuratively.
  - Nicksil 6y ago
    >5 does not fit the definition many in anyone's book. ... >I was asking OP if he was personally affected So 5 people dead is insignificant, but a single person, adversely affected, is cause for concern?
    - cutemonster 6y ago
      There're billions of people using software, divide 5 by that.
- holtalanm 6y ago
  not to split hairs here, but according to the Wikipedia article, Therac-25 only killed 3 people.
Veen 6y ago
When someone pays for software, they are perfectly entitled to expect it to be fit for purpose. Failures don't have to cause major grief for me to be justifiably irritated and to expect redress. A conscientious developer should apologize for wasting people's time or selling them products that don't do what they are supposed to.

Nicksil 6y ago

>Failed you? This sounds either very entitled or sensational. Has software caused you major grief in any way financial or the loss of limbs or loved ones? While this happens, very few people are affected by bugs in such a way, at least confirmed. Many people have been significantly affected by software bugs. Therac-25[1] is one I constantly remind myself of; it killed 5 people. Here's a list for further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_software_bugs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_software_bugs I'm not sure what your definition of "very few people" is but we'd all do well to aim for 0 adversely-affected people as a result from using software we write. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25

erikbye 6y ago
Read my reply again, note especially the part "While this happens". Obviously I am acutely aware of what you are saying, no matter how many Wikipedia articles you link, so your comment is not only superfluous but also makes no sense, as I was asking OP if he was personally affected in such a way because he seemed bitter. Your reply does not answer this, and you should let him answer for himself. > I'm not sure what your definition of "very few people" I think my definition is about the same as every accepted definition of "very few", the number of people affected by such bugs falls within this definition, considering how many users software has. > Many people have been significantly affected by software bugs. Therac-25[1] is one I constantly remind myself of; it killed 5 people. 5 does not fit the definition many in anyone's book.
- a1369209993 6y ago
  > 5 does not fit the definition many in anyone's book. Well, IIRC, there's Watership Down, a literal book, but I assume you meant that figuratively.
- Nicksil 6y ago
  >5 does not fit the definition many in anyone's book. ... >I was asking OP if he was personally affected So 5 people dead is insignificant, but a single person, adversely affected, is cause for concern?
  - cutemonster 6y ago
    There're billions of people using software, divide 5 by that.
holtalanm 6y ago
not to split hairs here, but according to the Wikipedia article, Therac-25 only killed 3 people.

Veen 6y ago

When someone pays for software, they are perfectly entitled to expect it to be fit for purpose. Failures don't have to cause major grief for me to be justifiably irritated and to expect redress. A conscientious developer should apologize for wasting people's time or selling them products that don't do what they are supposed to.