Murphys law...if something can wrong it will.
In real life there's an element of chance, the possibility for serendipity, and for seemingly random failure. For instance, you can be watching TV and have it suddenly burst into flames. That can happen and has happened substantiating Murphy's law.
But why is Murphy's law useful? On the face of it Murphy's law seem to strike fear and doubt into everything, which wouldn't be a particularly nice thing to quote anytime; "Oh, guess what? Everything sucks! So you might as well give up and die, painfully and horribly, of course, nothing but the worst for you!". But actually, Murphy's law is relieving because when something goes wrong (and stuff does) Murphy's law reminds us of the possibility for things to fail randomly and, more importantly, for failure to be outside of our control. Murphy's law says, "It's OK, you couldn't help it. Sometimes bad stuff just happens." Thanks Murphy, you're swell!
The reason I mention all this is because I actually don't agree that Murphy's law is being used correctly here. Failures in software are almost never random. If you bugger up your object state it's not because of an electrical short you couldn't have helped it's because of you, the programmer. As programmers we have an enormous amount of power and control over our machines. We feel the benefit of this when we achieve -- the credit belongs entirely to us and we feel great. But that means the blame is entirely ours when something goes wrong.
If you approach code superstitiously believing that the way it works is in some way unpredictable and magical, I'm afraid, you're operating under a false concept. You might be trying to make yourself feel better about why it failed but, sorry, "that was your fault and you should probably fix it now". The only way that opinion is reasonable is when you're dealing with somebody else's code that you can't see but even then that is better conceptualised a preordained system, however complex, than it is anything random.
I've noticed a correlation where reduced understanding leads increasingly to explanations of randomness. Even a call to mt_rand() is predictable, it's just deliberately so complex that we can't possibly explain it from outside observation. So, I assure you all, everything about what will and won't work, will and won't be reliable, will and won't break unexpectedly, can be explained. And by declaring some behaviour random one is, in effect, declaring their own bewilderment.
N.B. This isn't aimed personally at PCSpectra. A lot of people think this, he just reminded me of this problem and do I took this opportunity to address it for the benefit of those in this thread.