3 ms·
As a professional software developer, I find this absolutely fucking terrifying.. Finding out THAT there is a malfunction can already be just about practically
by dusted 4y ago
As a professional software developer, I find this absolutely fucking terrifying..
Finding out THAT there is a malfunction can already be just about practically impossible.. Add to that proving that there is.. That's probably provably impossible..
It's well-known that hardware randomly flips bits, and enough of those happen that even with ECC, it's not always detected.
It's even more well known that software is rarely provably functional.
- goodSteveramos 4y agoPresuming a computer is accurate is reasonable because otherwise you couldn't prove any crime ever in a digital world. In any one of these cases they could have gone back to the underlying bank records and found where the money actually went. They didn’t. Blaming the internal accounting software is an easy excuse for the outrageously low burden of proof the UK government holds itself to.
- dusted 4y agoIt is a reasonable assumption indeed, but it shouldn't be mindlessly trusted, and the burden of proof of innocence should never be on the defendant. If some idiot system places you on the scene of the crime, fine, good starting point, it'd be reasonable to start investigating whether you were there, but it should count for nothing in and of itself. There should be actual evidence that you were there, like DNA, fingerprints, actual photos, and a lack of any countering evidence.