You didn't like that example of how survivorship bias has zero place in this discussion?
Try on the picture of the bullet holes in planes when mounting a defense of reckless and culpable driving occasioning property damage while making your case to the judge that he hasn't heard about all the times the accused did not crash their car despite driving in a woefully incompetent manner...
There is ZERO excuse for this. You can't "accidentally" rob people and claim incompetence while pointing to other times you were incompetent and yet didn't rob people. It actually goes the other way. If you were incompetent, knew it and didn't fix the issue you're in deeper trouble.
Pictures of planes don't change that there is no excuse for this. None. Really.
I once was issued a ticket for "reckless driving". That night I was taking a curve in the rain and the car spun out, hit the curb, popped a tire, and (I would later learn) had damage to the axle. The cops weren't on the scene when it happened, didn't find any evidence of intoxication or other wrong doing, but felt as though their job wasn't done until some form of "justice" was served so decided to ticket me even though had I come to them for help. Great job guys. "protect and serve".
Fun story. So I'm sitting in court with the other people who are going to fight their ticket. I overhear a woman talking about her case. Remarkably similar to mine. Night, raining, car spun out, reckless driving ticket. Might even have been the exact same location.
If I had known this earlier, I could have compiled a record of all the other people who crashed in the same area under the same circumstances. I in fact absolutely would have used the argument with the judge "look at all the times I didn't crash", along with "look at all the times these other people didn't crash", building to a crescendo of "what are the odds all these people with otherwise clean driving records crashed in this same spot under these same conditions."
Luckily I didn't need to compile the traffic court history of that particular off ramp. I won the case anyway. Got about a third of the way through my stack of papers that I retrieved via FOIL request and online search before the judge interjected. "J: Counselor, are we beating a dead horse here? DA: I think so your honor. J: Mr. IIAOPSW you don't have to prove anything. I'm convinced the prosecution has failed to show sufficient evidence for their case. You're free to go. Me: Thank you kindly your honor."
Don't tell me what would or wouldn't work as a defense before a judge son. I've kicked the DA's ass before and I can do it again.
Your arguments are hyperbolic and you've engaged in a bait and switch. Hyperbolic, because Amazon miscalculating a few cents on a royalty payment isn't nearly on the level of wrongdoing as negligent vehicular manslaughter. Bait and switch because you started from the premise that "the fact that the error always works in Amazon's favor is proof of intentional wrongdoing". But when it was pointed out that you don't actually have evidence that the error always works in Amazon's favor, you switched to "no excuse for this. None. Ever." However, if we agreed to the standard that there's "no excuse for this ever", what's your excuse for all the people who stole from Amazon by accepting over payment for royalties? Why didn't they look at their payment slips, notice they were overpaid, and kindly notify customer service so they could return the money? Remember, in your own testimony you said "there is ZERO excuse for this. You can't accidentally rob people and claim incompetence while pointing to the other times you were incompetent and yet didn't rob people."
Your argument would be ripped to shreds by any competent lawyer.
There is no excuse for this. None.