> In deep discussions take your time to answer.
There's nothing “deep” about nonsensical justifications for sloppy programming and buggy software.
> It's the reality.
Only because we make it that way. It's not driven by some law of nature.
> There's nothing “deep”
deep, in the sense of a graph depth of replies.
The website is designed to slow down 'deep' discussions.
Please don't.
You don't understand hackernews. That's a feature of this website to slow down rambling discussions. In deep discussions take your time to answer. After a certain amount of time you can reply.
It's all in the Lisp code for this website.
> What's an incorrect program going to do about its own incorrectness? Rewrite itself?
There are a lot of options:
Look at actual Flight Control Software. That's what it does and what it is designed.Similar for other control systems, for example in power plants. They also need independent implementations controlling each other.
> Yeah, well, that's in itself precisely what's so terrible.
It's the reality. That's why mission critical systems don't believe that even verified software has no bugs.