Full video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnNsE4J-udc

It's worse. People don't even need to have personal experience to spread misinformation. They just read it online and then spread it like gospel.

Misinformation in the likes of "Wood glue it stronger than wood", "Burning Diesel/Kerosine can't reach temperatures required to melt steel".

I've done my share of embarrassing mistakes and each time I've felt awful. Nothing on this scale though.

I'll give Typescript yet another go. I really like it and wish I could use it. It's just that any project I start, inevitably the sourcemap chain will go wrong and I lose the ability to run the debugger in any meaningful way.

This is exactly like when you're teaching a new game to a group and you play an "open test round" - cards up and everyone can see all card/secrets and the sole purpose is for everyone to learn the game.

>Mr Padgett then made the remarkable assertions that this was a “fairly minor display issue” and that the Claimant “had not been negatively impacted and was in fact paid out the correct amount as determined by the RNG and in line with Paddy Power’s terms and conditions.”

>Stopping here, despite the absence of a witness statement from the Claimant, I do not accept those assertions by Mr Padgett. £1 million is a life changing sum for the vast majority of people in England and Wales. It could abolish debts, feed families, buy houses, pay for private medical care and many other vital matters in life. I infer that, like the majority of the population, the Claimant hoped and maybe dreamed of winning over £1 million. So, when she did so, on 18.10.2020, and when that sum was then taken away from her, that cannot properly or fairly be characterised as a “fairly minor display issue” and it is wrong to assert that the Claimant has “not been negatively impacted”.

Also:

>Mr Padgett admitted that 13 other consumers had been affected by the same mislabelling between the 1st of September and the 18th of October 2020 and he listed the dates upon which those events occurred. What he did not do was list the vice versa errors, namely where consumers were shown they had won the Daily Jackpot but in had in fact won the Monster Jackpot according to the RNGS and no evidence was provided at all about the vice versa errors, if any. Nor did he inform the Court about what the Defendant had done in relation to each of those consumers’ wins.

I feel like there are details missing. What happened to those who "really" won the jackpot according to the random number generator? What did the UI show then? Did everyone who won the smaller jackpot actually win the big jackpot? What are the technical details of the glitch?

Based on this incomplete information I'd say a total audit of the system should be carried out.

It's so strange, you read the material and sometimes you either struggle with understanding or even don't see how it's relevant and not just a waste of time.

Then when you review it much later, it's like opening a new room of knowledge, it just makes sense and it makes me so happy in a strange way.

I've had this happen often with music theory. Music theory it pretty dull on it's own and small gaps in knowledge excludes you from understanding a lot more.

One might say and be very careful but then a kickback shows up and causes brown pants at best, a life changing injury or death at worst.

Here's a story of a horror bughunt where the main characters are C++, select() and thread brandishing an exception: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42532979