the fact that a system eventually becomes complex and flawed is not due to engineering failures - it is inherent in the nature of changing systems
it is not. It's just that there will be some point, where you need significant effort to keep the systems structure up to the new demands {1}. I find the debt-metaphor is quite apt [2]: In your scenario the debt accumulates until it's easier to start fresh. But you can also manage your debt and keep going indefinitily. But in contrast to financial debt, paying of technical debt is much less obvious. First of all it is pretty much impossible to put any kind of exact number on it. On the other hand, it's very hard to tell what you actually should do to pay it off. (tangent: This is why experienced engineers are worth so much: (among other things) they have seen how debt evolves over time, and may see the early signs).
also employees don't need to have a shitty job to survive.
Now people have to decide between "doing a shitty job" and "starving". With UBI people can choose between "doing a shitty job" and "chilling at home". So if employers want their shitty job to be done, they will actually have to make it worth it (either by increasinge wages, or by making the job less shitty).
in other words: good jobs will get subsidized by UBI. Shitty jobs will compete with UBI
it's safe to assume there are similar issues in closed source. A big part of the snowden leaks was about how NSA could access lots of data at will. It wouldn't surprise me if they also could execute code.
Also there is stuxnet. But I am not sure, if there were intentional backdoors, or only some "natural occuring" RCE.
These are not the only two knee surgeries that exist, by any stretch.
If I was talking about every single kind of knee surgery, I would have said so.
This should be the end of it, but you went on and constructed a personal attack from your faulty assumptions. I think that merrits some more "defense" on my part.
When there is a statement without an explicit quantifier, the quantifier becomes ambiguous. Assuming the all-quantifier in this case was your personal decision. Since you construct an insulting argument from this faulty and intentional assumption, I can only assume malice. If the ambiguity was a problem, you could have simple asked. Or better yet: Do what everyone else did and click the link. If you still thought, the ambiguity was an issue, you could have just pointed it out, instead of making an insult out of it.
Please don’t spread medical misinformation
Tell that to someone who actually spreads medical misinformation. Not only was my joke correct, I even provided a credible source, which is far beyond what you can expect from a comment on a shitposting community.
it’s not helpful
the information, that many knee-surgeries only work through placebo-effect is very helpful. In fact my simplified and sensational (and true) claim probably made many people click on the link, which helped spread the message even further.
Also I think it sets a good example to provide sources for all interesting claims, even if it is on a shitposting sub.
https://gist.github.com/thom-nic/2c74ed4075569da0f80b