alt Hacker NewsSystems containing software fail, and the cause of that failure may originate in software.
And the article you intended to link is just wrong. E.g. the Therac-25 was not designed to output high power when an operator typed quickly; it was built in such a way to do so. This would be analogous to describing an airplane failure due to using bolts that were too weak: "the bolt didn't fail; it broke under exactly the forces you would expect it to break from its size; if they wanted it to not break, they should have used a larger bolt!" Just like in the Therac example, the failure would be consistently reproducible.
Replies
You allude to the difference between requirements and constraints. What you say is true, but also it's true that the Therac-25 was not designed to not output high power when an operator typed quickly.
It sounds like our main disagreement lies around whether to call it "design error" or "build error" but I do not believe this erases the useful distinction between "error present in the thing from day one" and "unpredictable failure of component suddenly no longer doing what it used to do".