[carlmr]

>But it's utterly fallacious. It's quite clear that if certain changes result in different behavior, then whomever made those specific changes is responsible for the resulting behavior. About the only leg the argument can stand on is if the code is so sloppy that someone attempting to make a simple change tickles a bug somewhere else, but enabling such lack of quality to persist is the exact wrong approach for a safety-critical system!

If there weren't rules that you have to protect your software from manipulation. But allowing manipulation leads to lawsuits alleging that the manufacturer is still at fault for any manipulations he allowed. So they don't allow any.

[Posibyte]

Are there any examples happening of this happening in recent years? (80's-now)