Edit history

That’s not entirely the same thing. It says it catches 89% of HARMFUL actions. That means that 11% of the time it doesn’t.

That’s more like if the corn had a parasite on it that could give you explosive diarrhea 11% of the time. Would you still eat the corn?

Also, in my example, I didn’t say the harmful actions of the pilot resulted in a crash. However, that doesn’t mean it couldn’t. How many of those 11% of the time are the “woops I deleted the production database” stories we hear all the time?

That’s not entirely the same thing. It says it catches 89% of HARMFUL actions. That means that 11% of the time it doesn’t.

That’s more like if the corn gave you explosive diarrhea 11% of the time. Would you still eat the corn if it only had a 89% chance of not making you shit yourself?

Also, in my example, I didn’t say the harmful actions of the pilot resulted in a crash. However, that doesn’t mean it couldn’t. How many of those 11% of the time are the “woops I deleted the production database” stories we hear all the time?

That’s not entirely the same thing. It says it catches 89% of HARMFUL actions. That means that 11% of the time it doesn’t.

That’s more like if the corn gave you explosive diarrhea 11% of the time. Would you still eat the corn if it only had a 89% chance of not making you shit yourself?