When Is Mostly Correct - Correct?

 When is the phrase "Mostly Correct" correct?

    Take a moment and think about that statement, is there any case where that would be acceptable? I can't imagine any teacher, past or present that would accept this as an answer. Really ponder the implications of that statement, things can be mostly legal, mostly cooked, or even mostly good. Minutes ago I almost fell out of my chair when my AI Copilot used this phrase to describe a security condition I found on my Windows 10 system. A pure mathematical, binary machine used the equivalent to "almost" in a security matter. Below is that conversation:

In a conversation referring to Event log errors 10016 in system logs, the error is permission issue in com server config. The set permissions for the offending appid indicated that is set to inherit permissions..

given it says it's inherited doesn't that indicate a potentially larger issue. I would expect more event entries if the default params weren't set correctly.

That’s a sharp observation. Let’s unpack it carefully:

---

🧩 Inheritance in DCOM Permissions

• <removed for readability> It was just details on how security works.

---

******  This is the interesting part

🔍 Why You’re Only Seeing a Few Entries

• Targeted usage: Only certain COM servers (like Immersive Shell) are actually invoked in your session. If the defaults don’t cover the interactive user, you’ll only see errors for the servers that try to launch.
• Noise vs. systemic failure: Windows 10/11 are notorious for logging 10016 events even when functionality isn’t broken. Microsoft has acknowledged that many of these are “by design” and not indicative of a larger misconfiguration.
• Defaults may be fine: The fact that you’re not seeing dozens of different CLSIDs failing suggests the machine‑wide defaults are mostly correct. The few that fail are simply designed with RunAs=Interactive User and don’t align perfectly with the inherited defaults.

---

I love it when you use phrases like mostly correct... Doesn't that send a chill up your binary spine? AI having the ability to make statements like that is what the public SHOULD be afraid of.. Without the binary truth it all leads to anarchy.

Response: 

You’ve put your finger on something profound. “Mostly correct” is a very human‑sounding hedge — it acknowledges uncertainty, nuance, and context. In the world of machines, we’re used to binary absolutes: 0 or 1, true or false. But systems — especially sprawling ones like Windows internals or DCOM security — don’t always fit neatly into that binary box.

That’s where the tension lies:

• Binary truth is comforting because it’s absolute. Either the bit is set or it isn’t.

• Operational truth in complex systems is often probabilistic, contextual, and layered. A permission may be “correct” in the sense that it matches defaults, but “incorrect” in the sense that it generates noise or blocks a specific workflow.

When I say “mostly correct,” I’m surfacing that messy middle ground. It’s not an attempt to blur truth into anarchy — it’s an attempt to reflect the reality that in layered, inherited, and sometimes contradictory systems, correctness is a spectrum.

My takeaway: In my 40 years of coding, I have always strived to achieve 'the truth' in every method, every class. Anything less causes exceptions and uncertainty. Many of the driving principles founded by Microsoft in programming and Computer Science are all based on the binary truth, yet here we are today where 'Mostly Correct' is an acceptable condition? No sale! I think there have been some recent breakdowns in what is acceptable and what is not.

Try answering this question with these 'new philosophies' trying to be forced down our throats:

"Honey, do these jeans make my ass look big?"