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 ;)
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@beehaw.org
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.
why though?
technically they are much simpler, with less moving parts. if anything they should be MORE reliable
Gonna guess it’s the half baked software?
I was guessing crappy build quality, but software is a great way to introduce planned obsolescence now that i’m thinking about it.
Probably the “fail fast” design mentality
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 ;)
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.