5 ms·

There is no money to be made in making systems more robust, not until problem really arises. This worries me great deal.

coldtea 8y ago
Is there a reason they have to be "more robust"? Lest, e.g. some Amazon deliveries don't come in 1 day but take a week? Or some employee doing some BS job can't use Gmail for a couple of days?
- oldmanhorton 8y ago
  Except the failure mode for Amazon shipping software (in this example) is equally or more likely to be the item is never shipped or a completely different item is shipped, rather than the correct item being delayed. The latter two are more difficult to deal with. Also, even in the delay case, more people are depending on Amazon for items they truly need, like groceries. Delays can matter.
- pjc50 8y ago
  Supermarket perishables are the classic example of things that have to be delivered within a very short time. Earlier this year there was no fresh milk, bread, veg or meat in my local (urban!) supermarket for a few days after some snow.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    >Supermarket perishables are the classic example of things that have to be delivered within a very short time. Yeah, but we've managed that in the 60s and 80s without so much as the web. Trucks are still needed of course.
    - pjc50 8y ago
      But that doesn't imply that the computer system can fail over to paper overnight, or that it's cheap to do so.
- czechdeveloper 8y ago
  Yes, in some cases. Like thermostats. I've read about Nest thermostat crash on loss of Internet connection which result in dangerous temperature loss in infants room. We can make those thinks more robust for years, but it does not have an app and does not make so much money. Food supply was original comment. Most people do not have food for week. (I compare it to always stocked pantry of my grandparents). Any small - one week - disruption can result in big problems for some. But we are moving to hi-tech just in time system everywhere, which are dependent on Internet, GPS, advanced forecasting etc. Those systems can be for example hacked and not functional for days. I don't care about Amazon delivery being late.
  - lotsofpulp 8y ago
    The dangerous temperature loss from a Nest thermostat crash sounds like hyperbole.
    - eivarv 8y ago
      https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/14/fashion/nest-thermostat-glitch-battery-dies-software-freeze.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/14/fashion/nest-thermostat-g...
      - lotsofpulp 8y ago
        That's what I mean, 64 degrees isn't the end of the world. And for the few hours of the night an infant sleeps, it's the same issue as if the power/gas were to go out.
        megamindbrian2 8y ago
        How about in Arizona where it is 120. Too hot could kill someone easily.
        lotsofpulp 8y ago
        A power outage results in the same thing. Someone so incapacitated that they can't move from a place that's getting too hot (such as a baby or the infirm) aren't probably left alone for long enough for the temp to reach extremes in the first place, and if they are, then that's the actual "dangerous" problem, not the thermostat. I'm disagreeing with, or pointing out, the incorrect use of the word "dangerous" in order to get clicks for an article.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  > Or some employee doing some BS job can't use Gmail for a couple of days? I'll grant you Amazon, but turn off GMail for a couple of days, and you'd dip the economy. A great many of small but essential companies - from car workshops to paint shops to furniture makers to retail and wholesale shops - run their business on personal GMail accounts. Losing access to primary e-mail for a week may very well be an existential threat for them. One which they don't realize, because GMail is generally reliable.
- zrobotics 8y ago
  Just anecdata, but 2 years ago Amazon incorrectly shipped me a 90lb granite surface plate instead of a 1lb set of calipers. Return shipping was ludicrous enough that customer service offered a ~90% discount if I elected to purchase it. So a software snafu (because I doubt a warehouse worker would ship an item that heavy out of laziness) cost them significant money, and extrapolate that cost by the number of orders daily: a serious glitch could run to millions of dollars in short order, and have long-term loss of trust issues for the business.
Cthulhu_ 8y ago
> There is no money to be made in making systems more robust, not until problem really arises. This worries me great deal. You say that but big companies like Amazon can calculate how much money they're missing per second of their services not being available, or how shaving off x milliseconds off of each request reduced their cost by millions per day. They also advertise with their uptime guarantees to haul in big contracts.
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  Amazon won't commit to uptime beyond refunding you any charges when they're down. This is insufficient for critical infrastructure. Disclaimer: I am in risk management for financial infrastructure.

coldtea 8y ago

Is there a reason they have to be "more robust"? Lest, e.g. some Amazon deliveries don't come in 1 day but take a week? Or some employee doing some BS job can't use Gmail for a couple of days?

oldmanhorton 8y ago
Except the failure mode for Amazon shipping software (in this example) is equally or more likely to be the item is never shipped or a completely different item is shipped, rather than the correct item being delayed. The latter two are more difficult to deal with. Also, even in the delay case, more people are depending on Amazon for items they truly need, like groceries. Delays can matter.
pjc50 8y ago
Supermarket perishables are the classic example of things that have to be delivered within a very short time. Earlier this year there was no fresh milk, bread, veg or meat in my local (urban!) supermarket for a few days after some snow.
- coldtea 8y ago
  >Supermarket perishables are the classic example of things that have to be delivered within a very short time. Yeah, but we've managed that in the 60s and 80s without so much as the web. Trucks are still needed of course.
  - pjc50 8y ago
    But that doesn't imply that the computer system can fail over to paper overnight, or that it's cheap to do so.
czechdeveloper 8y ago
Yes, in some cases. Like thermostats. I've read about Nest thermostat crash on loss of Internet connection which result in dangerous temperature loss in infants room. We can make those thinks more robust for years, but it does not have an app and does not make so much money. Food supply was original comment. Most people do not have food for week. (I compare it to always stocked pantry of my grandparents). Any small - one week - disruption can result in big problems for some. But we are moving to hi-tech just in time system everywhere, which are dependent on Internet, GPS, advanced forecasting etc. Those systems can be for example hacked and not functional for days. I don't care about Amazon delivery being late.
- lotsofpulp 8y ago
  The dangerous temperature loss from a Nest thermostat crash sounds like hyperbole.
  - eivarv 8y ago
    https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/14/fashion/nest-thermostat-glitch-battery-dies-software-freeze.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/14/fashion/nest-thermostat-g...
    - lotsofpulp 8y ago
      That's what I mean, 64 degrees isn't the end of the world. And for the few hours of the night an infant sleeps, it's the same issue as if the power/gas were to go out.
      - megamindbrian2 8y ago
        How about in Arizona where it is 120. Too hot could kill someone easily.
        lotsofpulp 8y ago
        A power outage results in the same thing. Someone so incapacitated that they can't move from a place that's getting too hot (such as a baby or the infirm) aren't probably left alone for long enough for the temp to reach extremes in the first place, and if they are, then that's the actual "dangerous" problem, not the thermostat. I'm disagreeing with, or pointing out, the incorrect use of the word "dangerous" in order to get clicks for an article.
TeMPOraL 8y ago
> Or some employee doing some BS job can't use Gmail for a couple of days? I'll grant you Amazon, but turn off GMail for a couple of days, and you'd dip the economy. A great many of small but essential companies - from car workshops to paint shops to furniture makers to retail and wholesale shops - run their business on personal GMail accounts. Losing access to primary e-mail for a week may very well be an existential threat for them. One which they don't realize, because GMail is generally reliable.
zrobotics 8y ago
Just anecdata, but 2 years ago Amazon incorrectly shipped me a 90lb granite surface plate instead of a 1lb set of calipers. Return shipping was ludicrous enough that customer service offered a ~90% discount if I elected to purchase it. So a software snafu (because I doubt a warehouse worker would ship an item that heavy out of laziness) cost them significant money, and extrapolate that cost by the number of orders daily: a serious glitch could run to millions of dollars in short order, and have long-term loss of trust issues for the business.

Cthulhu_ 8y ago

> There is no money to be made in making systems more robust, not until problem really arises. This worries me great deal. You say that but big companies like Amazon can calculate how much money they're missing per second of their services not being available, or how shaving off x milliseconds off of each request reduced their cost by millions per day. They also advertise with their uptime guarantees to haul in big contracts.

toomuchtodo 8y ago
Amazon won't commit to uptime beyond refunding you any charges when they're down. This is insufficient for critical infrastructure. Disclaimer: I am in risk management for financial infrastructure.