> With machines and tech, the expectation is that they are accurate (which is not true, but mostly true in the important ways). I find this an interesting comm

> With machines and tech, the expectation is that they are accurate (which is not true, but mostly true in the important ways). I find this an interesting comment with your choice of examples as there is an extensive legal history about false positives (medical conditions, mouthwash, etc.) and the need to show maintenance and calibration records. I was on a jury back in the 2000s where the San Diego police had to have someone from the crime lab testify about their process for managing their breathalyzers, and we ended up unanimously finding the guy not guilty on that charge because they’d messed up the process and had been a year late on calibration testing despite everyone agreeing he was drunk (based on his own testimony, receipts, and the bar staff, he’d had 3 double vodkas in the hour before getting behind the wheel, so we found him guilty on the other prong of California’s DUI statute - which is exactly what his attorney told us afterwards had been his prediction).