> it was also not safe with only humans Even if the average error-rate was the same (which is hardly safe to assume), there are other reasons not to assume equ

> it was also not safe with only humans Even if the average error-rate was the same (which is hardly safe to assume), there are other reasons not to assume equivalence: 1. The shape and distribution of the errors may be very different in ways which make the risk/impact worse. 2. Our institutional/system tools for detecting and recovering from errors are not the same. 3. Human errors are often things other humans can anticipate or simulate, and are accustomed to doing so. > friction Which would be one more item: 4. An X% error rate at a volume limited by human action may be acceptable, while an X% error rate at a much higher volume could be exponentially more damaging. _____________ "A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any other invention with the possible exceptions of handguns and Tequila." --Mitch Ratcliffe