>You can never ever know if it is going to silently alter your data unless you check it for correctness afterwards which no one is doing. The tech won't seem so awesome when someone is left off the credits for a talk (in this case).
terry mentions running some checksums after processing on the linked page. I'd imagine most people working on serious tasks do something similar.
https://mathstodon.xyz/@tao/110172819887751038 I'm glad that he spot checked but the checksum thing is nonsense. To be able to fully check that the output was correct (and not just the correct raw count of speakers but apportioned properly) then you need to compare the collation of the data as provided by another means (ie manually going through and building a spreadsheet in this case), which would be doing the work that this is claiming to avoid doing.
terry mentions running some checksums after processing on the linked page. I'd imagine most people working on serious tasks do something similar.