3 ms·

Not just fired, convicted of crimes they didn't commit. He's defending himself as much as the software. He personally gave testimony against some of the convic

Not just fired, convicted of crimes they didn't commit. He's defending himself as much as the software. He personally gave testimony against some of the convicted postmasters. He's in denial because otherwise he'd have to admit that he was not just wrong, but personally helped send innocent people to prison.

crooked-v 2y ago
Also, many of the 900-plus people affected were made to "pay back" "embezzled" money that was never missing in the first place, and more than a few went bankrupt in the process.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- aurizon 2y ago
  It was a national shame of the type that undermined and destroyed the USSR, and Putin and his ilk have robbed Russia and covered up a deep social culture of theft and corruption. You know, of course, that the invasion column sent to occupy Kiev stalled because tanker drivers sold the fuel and the army stalled. There are many other things we see on youtube/Telegram daily
KittenInABox 2y ago
If I wrote such software that drove otherwise healthy people to kill themselves I would consider myself responsible for their deaths. The motivation to deny this would be immense. I still have no sympathy for him; in my mind, I think he killed people.
- datavirtue 2y ago
  Dude, it's just software. The responsibility lies with management 100%.
  - lowbloodsugar 2y ago
    Right up to the point where (FTA) he provided expert testimony.
  - Devasta 2y ago
    "Once the rockets are up, who cares where they go down? That's not my department." says Werner Von Braun...
  - Jtsummers 2y ago
    > Dude, it's just software. The responsibility lies with management 100%. If you're an engineer, that's not true. The responsibility largely (though not entirely) lies with you. You're the one informing management on whether the system is sound, safe, and fit for purpose. If you don't want that kind of responsibility, don't call yourself an engineer. And definitely don't give expert testimony that your system couldn't possibly be at fault.
    - datavirtue 2y ago
      They had a responsibility to establish actual standing for accusing and prosecuting someone. Software is irrelevant at that point. If the software tells me to kill someone I'm going to hopefully step back and think shit over.
  - kergonath 2y ago
    He testified against them. At this point he is complicit.

crooked-v 2y ago

Also, many of the 900-plus people affected were made to "pay back" "embezzled" money that was never missing in the first place, and more than a few went bankrupt in the process.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
aurizon 2y ago
It was a national shame of the type that undermined and destroyed the USSR, and Putin and his ilk have robbed Russia and covered up a deep social culture of theft and corruption. You know, of course, that the invasion column sent to occupy Kiev stalled because tanker drivers sold the fuel and the army stalled. There are many other things we see on youtube/Telegram daily

KittenInABox 2y ago

If I wrote such software that drove otherwise healthy people to kill themselves I would consider myself responsible for their deaths. The motivation to deny this would be immense. I still have no sympathy for him; in my mind, I think he killed people.

datavirtue 2y ago
Dude, it's just software. The responsibility lies with management 100%.
- lowbloodsugar 2y ago
  Right up to the point where (FTA) he provided expert testimony.
- Devasta 2y ago
  "Once the rockets are up, who cares where they go down? That's not my department." says Werner Von Braun...
- Jtsummers 2y ago
  > Dude, it's just software. The responsibility lies with management 100%. If you're an engineer, that's not true. The responsibility largely (though not entirely) lies with you. You're the one informing management on whether the system is sound, safe, and fit for purpose. If you don't want that kind of responsibility, don't call yourself an engineer. And definitely don't give expert testimony that your system couldn't possibly be at fault.
  - datavirtue 2y ago
    They had a responsibility to establish actual standing for accusing and prosecuting someone. Software is irrelevant at that point. If the software tells me to kill someone I'm going to hopefully step back and think shit over.
- kergonath 2y ago
  He testified against them. At this point he is complicit.