upvote
I think I've already explained my position, and I don't have any deeper insight than that, so I'll be only repeating myself. But to repeat one more time: when talking about probability, there's something like "not mathematically zero, but the probability is so low that we can assume that it will just never happen."

And it's good that we can think that way, because we also follow the rules of statistical and quantum physics, which are inherently probabilistic. So, basically, you can say the same things about people. There's a nonzero (but extremely small) probability that I'll suddenly go mad and stab the next person. There's a nonzero (but even smaller) probability that I'll spontaneously erupt into a cloud of lethal pathogen that will destroy humanity. Yada yada.

Yet, nobody builds houses under the assumption that one of the occupants would transform into a lethal cloud, and for good reason.

Yes, it does sound a bit more absurd when we apply it to humans. But the underlying principle is very similar.

(I think this will be my last comment here because I'm just repeating myself.)

reply
> [When] talking about probability, there's something like "not mathematically zero, but the probability is so low that we can assume that it will just never happen."

If this is our only point of disagreement, then we don't actually disagree. I understand "strong engineering control" to mean "something that reduces incidence of a failure mode to an acceptable level".

reply