Hacker News Reader

Yes but I think we would say that incorrect software in those circumstances "doesn't function."

Most software is "usably wrong," which is good enough to build a career on.

Good enough because it's good enough (most of the time) for the user to do what they need to do. That's all that's needed. Not perfection.

Even more: Perfection takes a lot of time. Perfection therefore means less software reaching the user. So, is the imperfect software more useful to the user than no software at all? In most cases, yes, even with all the problems the software causes. (Because if it were otherwise, wouldn't the users stop using the software?)

You seem to be largely agreeing with the person you’re replying to. No need to disparage them.

TFA made a universal claim. OP replied “not true, here’s where it doesn’t hold.” Bringing up cases where it does hold doesn’t change anything.

It already does.