Read my reply again, note especially the part "While this happens". Obviously I am acutely aware of what you are saying, no matter how many Wikipedia articles you link, so your comment is not only superfluous but also makes no sense, as I was asking OP if he was personally affected in such a way because he seemed bitter. Your reply does not answer this, and you should let him answer for himself.

> I'm not sure what your definition of "very few people"

I think my definition is about the same as every accepted definition of "very few", the number of people affected by such bugs falls within this definition, considering how many users software has.

> Many people have been significantly affected by software bugs. Therac-25[1] is one I constantly remind myself of; it killed 5 people.

5 does not fit the definition many in anyone's book.

>5 does not fit the definition many in anyone's book.

...

>I was asking OP if he was personally affected

So 5 people dead is insignificant, but a single person, adversely affected, is cause for concern?

There're billions of people using software, divide 5 by that.

> 5 does not fit the definition many in anyone's book.

Well, IIRC, there's Watership Down, a literal book, but I assume you meant that figuratively.

not to split hairs here, but according to the Wikipedia article, Therac-25 only killed 3 people.