3 ms·

As is common, the article uses "antifragile" to mean "robust", despite claiming not to. > it’s antifragile thanks to a diverse mix of strong products.

zackkrida 5y ago
exactly. if anti-fragility is only achieved through robustness, what is the point of the distinction?
- chongli 5y ago
  The point of the distinction is to signal oneself as a fan of Taleb.
1123581321 5y ago
Just quoting that line is confusing. The thesis in those paragraphs is that COVID benefitted major lines of their business more than it hurt others and that was due to characteristics of the supply chain. I agree anti-fragile is often misused but the author takes care to define robustness first and contrasts his antifragility thesis to the robustness of the overall sound business. That said, I would look at other companies for examples of “true antifragility” although it’s interesting to try to analyze how a top global company can still raise the limit of its performance in situations that hurt its competitors.
- harry8 5y ago
  The external shocks to a process benefit the process and make it stronger. Eg your immune system gets stronger by exposed to some amount of bugs that it needs to fight, despite your getting sick while it's fighting them. The distinction is whether it's "This is fine, we did ok through this" which is robust vs "This is something where we are now in a stronger position from being knocked about a bit." A well made double brick wall may be robust and survive the cyclone looking good but is not anti-fragile.
  - 1123581321 5y ago
    Yes, I understand. I think they were trying hard to make that distinction in the article with the long section about robustness and the long section about antifragility, as well as the definitions up front that match yours.
    - harry8 5y ago
      I may have hit reply on the wrong comment there. Sorry.
snowwrestler 5y ago
Because the concept of antifragile is nonsense. People don’t get stronger by lifting kettle bells, they get stronger from the rest and nutrition they take after lifting kettle bells. If you put the human body under constant stress, it just breaks down—like anything else under constant stress. Apple showed excellent robustness under the stress from the impact of COVID. It did so via strong capital reserves and diverse lines of business. Which is great, but it’s bog-standard corporate strategy. Very hard to execute well, though.

zackkrida 5y ago

exactly. if anti-fragility is only achieved through robustness, what is the point of the distinction?

chongli 5y ago
The point of the distinction is to signal oneself as a fan of Taleb.

1123581321 5y ago

Just quoting that line is confusing. The thesis in those paragraphs is that COVID benefitted major lines of their business more than it hurt others and that was due to characteristics of the supply chain. I agree anti-fragile is often misused but the author takes care to define robustness first and contrasts his antifragility thesis to the robustness of the overall sound business. That said, I would look at other companies for examples of “true antifragility” although it’s interesting to try to analyze how a top global company can still raise the limit of its performance in situations that hurt its competitors.

harry8 5y ago
The external shocks to a process benefit the process and make it stronger. Eg your immune system gets stronger by exposed to some amount of bugs that it needs to fight, despite your getting sick while it's fighting them. The distinction is whether it's "This is fine, we did ok through this" which is robust vs "This is something where we are now in a stronger position from being knocked about a bit." A well made double brick wall may be robust and survive the cyclone looking good but is not anti-fragile.
- 1123581321 5y ago
  Yes, I understand. I think they were trying hard to make that distinction in the article with the long section about robustness and the long section about antifragility, as well as the definitions up front that match yours.
  - harry8 5y ago
    I may have hit reply on the wrong comment there. Sorry.

snowwrestler 5y ago

Because the concept of antifragile is nonsense. People don’t get stronger by lifting kettle bells, they get stronger from the rest and nutrition they take after lifting kettle bells. If you put the human body under constant stress, it just breaks down—like anything else under constant stress. Apple showed excellent robustness under the stress from the impact of COVID. It did so via strong capital reserves and diverse lines of business. Which is great, but it’s bog-standard corporate strategy. Very hard to execute well, though.