4 ms·
> laziest solution. Maybe. But also probably shortest path, least amount of risk and resource investment.
by SaltyBackendGuy 6y ago
> laziest solution.
Maybe. But also probably shortest path, least amount of risk and resource investment.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- culturestate 6y agoI mean, Samsung is one of the largest companies in the world and they already run a global cloud infrastructure to support their electronics division. I can't imagine that a PM who really cared would have much trouble getting a couple of endpoints provisioned if he or she wanted them. The more likely scenario is that they came up with what they thought was a good-enough solution and just moved on without really considering the knock-on effects.
- curryst 6y agoYou need really high reliability for that; if those endpoints go down, none of your customers' phones will connect to wifi until you fix them. People would be extremely upset they thought they were on wifi but they were really blowing through their data.
- notRobot 6y ago> shortest path, least amount of risk and resource investment. That is laziness.
- vinay427 6y agoThey said "also," and didn't deny that it may be lazy. Since when is the lazy solution, by this definition, also automatically the illogical (or even "bad") one?