Safety-Critical Software Reliability

Commenters debate the high standards and liability required for software in life-critical systems like medical devices, aviation, and nuclear controls where bugs can kill people, contrasting it with lax practices in non-critical software and citing examples like Therac-25.

➡️ Stable 0.6x Politics & Society
4,134
Comments
20
Years Active
5
Top Authors
#6210
Topic ID

Activity Over Time

2007
1
2008
15
2009
52
2010
50
2011
55
2012
91
2013
126
2014
169
2015
190
2016
260
2017
223
2018
324
2019
353
2020
336
2021
356
2022
316
2023
402
2024
400
2025
396
2026
19

Keywords

e.g IT HAVE IMHO ICANN calpoly.edu PR UI AI THERAC25 software critical bug bugs kill human systems nuclear reactor safety critical reactor

Sample Comments

teaearlgraycold Mar 23, 2023 View on HN

Welcome to the real world, where software can get people killed.

SmellyGeekBoy Jul 4, 2017 View on HN

We trust software to fly our planes and run our nuclear power stations... So what's the problem?

mnau Mar 26, 2024 View on HN

I think the reason why first two examples can say that they are safe is that in case of failure, people die. And thus there was a regulation introduced. People generally care when they can die.In case of software, rather rarely people die and when software is being done on something human critical (a friend of mine works on pacemakers), there a great deal of care being done.So basically it's a wide range from DIY using a cheap wrench to person rotating a torque calibrated wrench on a

Apocryphon Apr 27, 2016 View on HN

Software is eating the world, right? There's already a lot of code that could kill people. Or work on bridges.

godelski May 2, 2023 View on HN

I think there's a software engineering bias. Unless you work on critical systems you can generally "move fast and break things." But in the rest of the engineering world this kills people and is often illegal (e.g. aircraft). You're legally liable.We can even notice this with the difference in software on more critical systems vs non-critical. Compute systems on cars are not the same compute systems in your computer, and are way under powered in comparison. These systems d

natoliniak Feb 8, 2022 View on HN

Kudos, but is there a flip side of the coin, where the software you write can cost someone life (if you screw something up/introduce a bug)?

Muromec Aug 29, 2024 View on HN

"It's not like I write software for a nuclear reactor, making a mistake will not kill anybody".

zweep Feb 12, 2020 View on HN

Software is built like crap because when it fails it doesn't kill anyone. Except the software that does kill people when it fails, and that's engineered properly -- not perfectly, but in line with other things like airliners and elevators.

rubyist5eva Oct 14, 2022 View on HN

It's not about complexity, sophistication or quality - it's about liability when shit hits the fan and your bugs kill someone.

burfog Dec 13, 2018 View on HN

With that "works 90% of time" idea, please don't ever involve yourself in software for anything serious: air traffic control, self-driving cars, autopilots, nuclear reactor control, insulin pumps, defibrillators, pacemakers, spacecraft attitude control, automated train control, the network stack of a popular OS, a mainstream web browser, a Bitcoin client, the trading software of a major exchange, ICANN's database, certificate signing, ICBM early warning system, cancer irradia