As I interpret Murphy's Law, it's not so much about failure in actuality, but more about anticipating the failure, and designing your code/product/system for the worst case scenario.
Murphy himself was unhappy abut the common interpretation of his law, which is negative rather than cautionary, implying a vindictiveness to exist in inanimate objects and the laws of chance.
> but more about anticipating the failure, and designing your code/product/system for the worst case scenario
Which was his intent. IIRC the phrase was coined while working on rocket sleds for a land speed record attempt. He was essentially trying to achieve "no matter what happens we want to maximise the chance of the pilot being alive afterwards, if some of the equipment survives too that is even better" and promoting a defensive always-fail-as-safely-as-possible engineering stance.
Are you sure about that? Murphy's actual statement was negative and not cautionary. He was criticizing a person, not saying something cautionary about the nature of the universe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murphy%27s_law#Association_wit...