>If the act is only words then it doesn't require privilege, I'm honestly curious how you would connect the two.
Because words carry weight based on who says them. Which is based on power/privileged. The president making an announcement about MedBeds would cause a much bigger conversation than a crackpot conspiracy group on Facebook. And that's sadly not belittling the FB group (give who I've seen fall for it), that's demonstrating how much more authority the president's words have.
>but a word alone can't harm anyone.
In the same way a pebble can't harm you, but it can be holding back a rockslide that can cause mass damage.
> In the same way a pebble can't harm you, but it can be holding back a rockslide that can cause mass damage.
That analogy doesn't hold. For one thing a pebble can in fact hurt you by itself. For another, the words still wouldn't be what harmed you, the actions people took later are what harmed you and those are what would be illegal.
The fear and anxiety caused by threats issued by those with the capability and proclivity for violence against those with no defense against it is the injury.
>You can predict which changes in the source code will lead to which exact changes in the behavior of the compiled program.
A vanishingly small percentage of coders are thinking about this when they're coding. Compilers do so many optimizations that most work-a-day programmers don't think about as well. If you're one of those people who care about the exact instructions coming out of your compiler, you're just inlining assembly.
this is why I find comparing mostly-solid-state stuff with big mechanical contraptions a frustrating exercise.
it's more impressive to me that the electric fans within the Stratus server still operate than it is that the chips still work, and if we're going with the plane metaphor it's the silicon that puts the thing into the air, not the simple fans.
So really it just boils down to "well, the planes work is harder." as to why it fails, which is of course abstract and unsatisfying; comparing the comparative lifetime workloads of a chip that has shifted trillions of bits versus some jet engines that have moved millions of kilograms around the world.
and then another layer comes and makes it even weirder : the vast majority of hardware around the world that has been EoLd and replaced has been in that situation due to software, not the hardware itself; a paradigm that really doesn't exist in the physical engineering world in the same was as it does CS.
Mechanical integrity in industrial processes is often divided into two categories: static equipment (tanks, pipes, heat exchangers...) and rotating equipment.
These two have very distinct failure modes. The failure mechanisms for solid state electronics are much more similar to those for static equipment (corrosion, thermal fatigue, creep, ...)
Was going to say, there's servers that last several decades, they receive routine maintenance, most people buy a computer, and rarely replace parts, and if enough years pass, you opt to buy a new one instead.
Naval vessels are some of the most maintained machines in the world. They get hauled out for hull repairs routinely, or put into long term maintenance facilities for months while they are repaired. Probably second only to airplanes and space craft.
