5 ms·

As a programmer that works on drivers, it's my experience that hardware almost never works correctly. "We'll fix it in software" might as well be the official m

As a programmer that works on drivers, it's my experience that hardware almost never works correctly. "We'll fix it in software" might as well be the official motto of the hardware industry.

m-ee 3y ago
As a firmware engineer I’m horrified at the presumption that hardware is always operating correctly. Many times I’ve been told “your new firmware is broken” and the real problem is something as mundane as an improper capacitor or resistor value. Also just look at the errata sheet for any microcontroller. Hardware bugs are so prevalent we have a special term and semi standardized document to describe them.
- amelius 3y ago
  That's funny, because this just came in: https://apnews.com/article/iphone-15-overheating-apple-software-bug-088fcf5250ee7e839930aea56dfed3fa https://apnews.com/article/iphone-15-overheating-apple-softw...
  - runeks 3y ago
    What makes you think this isn't just a software bug?
    - amelius 3y ago
      Because "too hot to handle" tells me that this should have really been prevented at the hardware level, and this is also common practice.
      - andromeduck 3y ago
        Power control is all configuration. Hardware merely provider the signals and mechanisms for SW control.
        amelius 3y ago
        Within limits, yes.
        foldr 3y ago
        There's no indication that any of the components are exceeding their operating temperature range. It's just that the case becomes uncomfortably hot. It's hard to measure the peak external temperature of the case, so there can't really be a simple hardware-level failsafe for that.
- PartiallyTyped 3y ago
  A good friend of mine is a hypervisor/kernel engineer, and I can swear he has said the same thing, almost word for word.
gwd 3y ago
But thinking about a court case, what should be the presumption? Should it be up to the prosecution to prove that the RAID controller / network card didn't corrupt the data or that the GPU did the math correctly? Or should it be up to the defense to prove that it didn't? And how would each side demonstrate their case to a reasonable level of certainty? As others in this thread have said, for bits of the system that have clearly defined parameters and get extensive testing (by like, millions of people), I think you can begin with the assumption that those bits are correct: you can assume the CPU is adding numbers correctly, that the compiler compiled the code correctly, that the spreadsheet executed the formula it was given correctly, and it's up to the defense to prove otherwise. Bugs in the CPU / compiler / spreadsheet software would get caught pretty quickly. But for bits where the right answer is not clear, and / or doesn't get extensive testing -- the formulas inside the spreadsheet, custom-written software -- the assumption should be that it does not work, and it should be up to the prosecution to demonstrate that the software is working correctly.
- auggierose 3y ago
  Mathematical verification of both hardware and software should be mandatory, at least as long you rely on it for the law. Simple as that. For example, how can you trust a photo, when tons of computational photography has been applied to it, and you don't know the exact amount the algorithms can change the photo?
  - xyzzy123 3y ago
    That's not really economic at present, hopefully it will be one day. There are a very small number of verified programs, no mainstream operating systems and no major application suites. We just don't have the technology for it yet. It does not seem very practical to throw out all digital evidence (eg photos and videos) because there is some chance of misprocessing. Who even records in analog today? What corresponding standard would you demand for analog evidence? Even in analog there were film issues, processing issues, noise, smudges, tampering and uncertainty, people have been dealing with these sorts of confounders for a long time. We don't generally require "mathematical certainty" for other types of evidence. Personally I think GP was proposing a reasonably balanced commonsense perspective.
harry8 3y ago
What you say is completely true in my experience. Comically so. However when using a computer application and noticing unexpected and erroneous behaviour, what proportion is the time can the bug be traced back to hardware vs software? I’m going with about 1 to 1000. I think that’s conservative. Do you see it differently?

As a programmer that works on drivers, it's my experience that hardware almost never works correctly. "We'll fix it in software" might as well be the official motto of the hardware industry.

m-ee 3y ago

As a firmware engineer I’m horrified at the presumption that hardware is always operating correctly. Many times I’ve been told “your new firmware is broken” and the real problem is something as mundane as an improper capacitor or resistor value. Also just look at the errata sheet for any microcontroller. Hardware bugs are so prevalent we have a special term and semi standardized document to describe them.

amelius 3y ago
That's funny, because this just came in: https://apnews.com/article/iphone-15-overheating-apple-software-bug-088fcf5250ee7e839930aea56dfed3fa https://apnews.com/article/iphone-15-overheating-apple-softw...
- runeks 3y ago
  What makes you think this isn't just a software bug?
  - amelius 3y ago
    Because "too hot to handle" tells me that this should have really been prevented at the hardware level, and this is also common practice.
    - andromeduck 3y ago
      Power control is all configuration. Hardware merely provider the signals and mechanisms for SW control.
      - amelius 3y ago
        Within limits, yes.
        foldr 3y ago
        There's no indication that any of the components are exceeding their operating temperature range. It's just that the case becomes uncomfortably hot. It's hard to measure the peak external temperature of the case, so there can't really be a simple hardware-level failsafe for that.
PartiallyTyped 3y ago
A good friend of mine is a hypervisor/kernel engineer, and I can swear he has said the same thing, almost word for word.

gwd 3y ago

But thinking about a court case, what should be the presumption? Should it be up to the prosecution to prove that the RAID controller / network card didn't corrupt the data or that the GPU did the math correctly? Or should it be up to the defense to prove that it didn't? And how would each side demonstrate their case to a reasonable level of certainty? As others in this thread have said, for bits of the system that have clearly defined parameters and get extensive testing (by like, millions of people), I think you can begin with the assumption that those bits are correct: you can assume the CPU is adding numbers correctly, that the compiler compiled the code correctly, that the spreadsheet executed the formula it was given correctly, and it's up to the defense to prove otherwise. Bugs in the CPU / compiler / spreadsheet software would get caught pretty quickly. But for bits where the right answer is not clear, and / or doesn't get extensive testing -- the formulas inside the spreadsheet, custom-written software -- the assumption should be that it does not work, and it should be up to the prosecution to demonstrate that the software is working correctly.

auggierose 3y ago
Mathematical verification of both hardware and software should be mandatory, at least as long you rely on it for the law. Simple as that. For example, how can you trust a photo, when tons of computational photography has been applied to it, and you don't know the exact amount the algorithms can change the photo?
- xyzzy123 3y ago
  That's not really economic at present, hopefully it will be one day. There are a very small number of verified programs, no mainstream operating systems and no major application suites. We just don't have the technology for it yet. It does not seem very practical to throw out all digital evidence (eg photos and videos) because there is some chance of misprocessing. Who even records in analog today? What corresponding standard would you demand for analog evidence? Even in analog there were film issues, processing issues, noise, smudges, tampering and uncertainty, people have been dealing with these sorts of confounders for a long time. We don't generally require "mathematical certainty" for other types of evidence. Personally I think GP was proposing a reasonably balanced commonsense perspective.

harry8 3y ago

What you say is completely true in my experience. Comically so. However when using a computer application and noticing unexpected and erroneous behaviour, what proportion is the time can the bug be traced back to hardware vs software? I’m going with about 1 to 1000. I think that’s conservative. Do you see it differently?