• umbrella@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    11 months ago

    why though?

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

      • umbrella@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        11 months ago

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

      • cwagner@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        11 months ago

        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 ;)

        • Radiant_sir_radiant@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months 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.