3 ms·

>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

>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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y ago
    There're billions of people using software, divide 5 by that.
holtalanm 7y ago
not to split hairs here, but according to the Wikipedia article, Therac-25 only killed 3 people.

erikbye 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y ago
  There're billions of people using software, divide 5 by that.

holtalanm 7y ago

not to split hairs here, but according to the Wikipedia article, Therac-25 only killed 3 people.