[whydoyoucare]

I believe instances like this will push people to reconsider the lax stance. Humans in general have a hard time regulating something abstract. The fact that people can be killed is well-known since the 80s', see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25

[suzzer99]

I once worked on some software that generated PDFs of lab reports for drug companies monitoring clinical trials. These reports had been tested, but not exhaustively.

We got a new requirement to give doctors access to print them on demand. Before this, doctors only read dot matrix-printed reports that had been vetted for decades. With our XSL-FO PDF generator, it was possible that a column could be pushed outside the print boundary, leading a doctor to see 0.9 as 0. I assume in a worst worst case scenario, this could lead to an misdiagnosis, intervention, and even a patient's death.

I was the only one in the company who cared about doing a ton more testing before we opened the reports to doctors. I had to fight hard for it, then I had to do all the work to come up with every possible lab report scenario and test it. I just couldn't stand the idea that someone might die or be seriously hurt by my software.

Imagine how many times one developer doesn't stand up in that scenario.

[atoav]

This is why I made that point, similar to you I would not stand for having my code in something that I can't stand behind, especially if it potentially harms people.

But it should not hinge on us convincing people.