I didn't think that was about too many alarms going off and so that a real one was being ignored, and re-reading the article doesn't give that impression either. It was more to do with a bug in the user interface (it appeared that you were re-editing a field you'd just filled in but actually weren't) and a memory corruption bug, along with assuming that software always works so doesn't need any additional checks. Are you thinking of another software failure?
(If by "dangers of creating too many errors" you just meant "don't create too many bugs" then that's not really relevant to this conversation, and also totally the wrong lesson to learn from that incident. The lesson is, software will inevitably have bugs, so make sure you have redundant checks to minimise their impact.)
(If by "dangers of creating too many errors" you just meant "don't create too many bugs" then that's not really relevant to this conversation, and also totally the wrong lesson to learn from that incident. The lesson is, software will inevitably have bugs, so make sure you have redundant checks to minimise their impact.)