this post was submitted on 03 Dec 2023
57 points (96.7% liked)

Technology

38093 readers
600 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago (2 children)

why though?

technically they are much simpler, with less moving parts. if anything they should be MORE reliable

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Gonna guess it's the half baked software?

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago

I was guessing crappy build quality, but software is a great way to introduce planned obsolescence now that i'm thinking about it.

[–] kent_eh 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Probably the "fail fast" design mentality

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I know what you mean, but FWIW: You probably mean "move fast and break things". "Fail fast" is usually about not hiding/carrying with you potentially bad errors, and instead "fail fast" when you know there’s an issue. It’s an important tool for reliability.

An unrealistic example: Better to fail fast and not start the car at all when there’s abnormal voltage fluctuations, then explode while driving ;)

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Maybe they actually meant "fail fast" because it's cheaper to build? It would certainly explain a lot.

Not quite sure myself if I'm kidding or not.