This is a comic with a take on an application store - the most common app stores are for iPhones and Android devices. The creator of this app is "DroidCoder2187", which implies that the app may be for Android devices.
The image text is funny because it is a note from the developer's bug report, which said they could not reproduce the error. Of course, they could only reproduce such a failure if there were a tornado coming towards their area. This is a fairly rare situation, especially in certain areas of the world. This lack of suitable testing conditions explains why the actual tornado-prediction portion of their code appears to be faulty.
The image text is also a reference to another comic: http://xkcd.com/583/
In this comic, the bug was that the speech recognition fails on a young child's voice. So the team attempts to reproduce a child in order to fix the bug and get the test subject. The bug report is closed as cannot fixed with the reason being 'could not reproduce'. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 19:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
And it's happened. See https://twitter.com/andymangold/status/341327603451441152/photo/1. Four-star rated "Tornado by American Red Cross" app, current top review reads "I did not find this app useful at all. There was a tornado watch for eight hours in my town, a tornado warning for 30 minutes, and there were no warnings or alerts visible on this app." 18.104.22.168 16:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- ROFL ;) If this picture is real it should be added to this explain. Check the Customer Review here: itunes, I am sure it's just a reaction on this comic.--Dgbrt (talk) 19:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
According to 1098, it's still an OK app. 22:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
'could not reproduce'
I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait (talk) 13:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
This is why looking at both the positive and negative reviews is good practice. --22.214.171.124 17:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
It struck me when I read it that it was also suggesting that there are probably other people out there who COULDN'T leave a negative review, because the app failed them and they were killed in the tornado. If the program not working means you're likely to die, then only people with positive reviews will survive to leave reviews, giving the wrong impression: look, the are 3 times as many positive reviews as negative ones! I'll take it!"
It seems like there must be some reason he chose something so deadly as a tornado; it could have been anything, and the other reasons would still have worked.126.96.36.199 00:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
True to life if you've ever checked a travel insurance policy review site. Everything is rated five stars because of idiots leaving reviews that went "I didn't need it, thank God, but the feeling of security is invaluable."188.8.131.52 09:08, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Neither the explanation nor the comment seem to realize that the app does not claim to warn of approaching tornadoes. The description actually indicates it notifies of "tornado warnings", which are PSA (public service announcements) broadcasted on TV or over-the-air radio when there's an official tornado detected in a certain area. So technically even the 1-star comment is either wrong or incomplete -- we don't know whether a tornado warning was issued in this particular case. Furthermore, one of positive comments indicates one can setup geofencing locations in the app, and in the case of the 1-star comment we don't know whether this was setup properly or not by the user.
Far from blaming the victim, this is actually a real issue on the receiving end of bug reports. Software developers often have to deal with laconic explanations of what went wrong, lacking proper context and details that would make the bug reports actually meaningful. A proper bug report is supposed to give as much context as possible, which a single short sentence in a feedback/rating screen does not allow for. Ralfoide (talk) 16:05, 3 November 2016 (UTC)