I&#x27;m not really sure how to take this recent and emerging narrative that software source code compilation is actually an unreliable, unpredictable activity.<p>I find it really strange that there&#x27;s a sudden, intense focus on the premise that, given the same source code, when providing it to different people in the wild and asking them to try and compile it, and then having them share their results, doing so reveals variations and disparities that are difficult to explain or account for.<p>I know <i>why</i> people are suddenly paying attention to this detail: paranoia.<p>I remember when I noticed this concept had first started to gain some traction. Once people started trying to compile certain open-source crypto applications, and found that their binaries weren&#x27;t byte-for-byte replicas, it begged the question: Am I actually encrypting my confidential data with a surreptitiously hobbled program? Is there a covert plot to infiltrate and sabotage these sorts of software projects? How would I know if the encryption was weakened in a subtle way, when I don&#x27;t have the resources to try and crack it at levels that demand well-funded hardware?<p>But, I wonder, is this something to worry about everywhere?<p>Is this why so many projects are now taking on this additional activity?<p>Is there a panic and an anxiety driving this trend, or are we just crossing dotting our i&#x27;s and our crossing our t&#x27;s with yet another set of best practices?