3 ms·
I was thinking about this just today randomly. Every bit in computer memory or data store is just a bit flip away from being completely wrong. In other words
by albert_e 3y ago
I was thinking about this just today randomly.
Every bit in computer memory or data store is just a bit flip away from being completely wrong.
In other words all data corruption -- unintentional or deliberate-- can be statistically shown as a bunch of off-by-one errors.
Of course the chance of multiple random off-by-one errors lining up exactly to help one party is astronomically low. But would a typical court of law be able to discern?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- andrewla 3y agoI don't think this categorization is technically correct, and even in the places where it is partially correct I don't see that the "off-by-one" phrasing adds any value. Off-by-one errors are a very specific type of error in algorithm implementation, where a closed boundary and an open boundary are confused. A general bit flip is not really an example of this unless it is connected to this specific kind of mistake. And data corruption is much broader, and can involve adding or removing data from a stream in addition to mutating existing data. Saying that all data mutations are a "bunch of off-by-one errors" is just asserting that there exists a hamming distance between any two binary representations of the same length, and I don't think this adds a lot of insight. On the other hand, using the term "off-by-one error" carries with it a lot of baggage and connotations, most of which do not apply to scenarios you have described or general data corruption.
- albert_e 3y agothank you I was talking very loosely --surely it doesn't stand up to any level of scrutiny