7 ms·

It's not that people don't know it's a SPOF. The issue is that if you fail in a way that is common, nobody blames you. Cell phone 2FA is so ubiquitous that when

It's not that people don't know it's a SPOF. The issue is that if you fail in a way that is common, nobody blames you. Cell phone 2FA is so ubiquitous that when it doesn't work clients wonder if they're the one fucking up. We had a massive internet outage in Canada recently and nobody blamed individual shops for not being able to take credit cards, they blamed the phone company. If you roll your own thing, even if it's objectively better, you're painting a target on your back. Now when your new thing fails it's your fault. There's also something to be said for how modern financial capitalism has squeezed redundancy out of everything. Supply chains are just-in-time, businesses rely on a million vendors for everything, if a single link in the chain fails it usually has a huge blast radius because of broad consolidation in these upstream suppliers. Basically there are a lot of small businesses that depend on like 5 large companies (think Sysco, telecoms, etc) and if those large companies fail every small company fails in the same way, so there's no incentive to derisk (because your competitors will all also be failing in the same way).

dumpsterlid 4y ago
You hit the nail on the head
gameshot911 4y ago
Let's not forget the benefits either. Reduced redundancy is _good_ (as long as nothing fails in the chain, ofc). It enables society to make more, for lower costs. And it works remarkably well, overall.
- falcolas 4y ago
  But thats the problem being expressed - things will fail. Things will always fail, and ignoring that is the equivalent of burying your head in the sand and thinking your ass is covered.
  - gameshot911 4y ago
    If things go right 8 times out of 10 overall, that's a net win. Expected value - I get Product X $2 cheaper if things go right, but lose $6 if things go wrong. Expected value = 2*.8-6*.2 = .4. Overall net positive.
    - falcolas 4y ago
      "The price for something is measurably higher if the manufacturer maintains a surplus of components with an inelastic supply" is not really true though. Once the initial investment in creating a stock of those items is done, there's only a minimal storage cost. For things like chips for cars, that storage cost is probably measured in double-digit dollars a year to create billions of dollars worth of vehicles. Is investing in a business to smooth over supply chain problems really so taboo to a modern businessman?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
pif 4y ago
> modern financial capitalism has squeezed redundancy out of everything If by "modern financial capitalism" you mean "customers who prefer cheaper to superior quality of product and/or service", then I agree with you.
- BLanen 4y ago
  If you're a naive economist and you think Homo Economicus is real.
- falcolas 4y ago
  How often are customers really given that choice, as opposed to companies making the decision on their behalf because customers are stupid (they just want a better horse after all). We can't buy what doesn't exist after all.
  - pif 4y ago
    > How often are customers really given that choice? You and your competition produce two equivalent products. They sell theirs for $100: do you feel confident in pricing yours at $110 and base your commercial copy on "We rely on a more robust logistic chain in case of a world-wide catastrophe"?
    - falcolas 4y ago
      This isn't asking the customer to make a choice, it's asking a businessman if they're willing to invest in their business. And it is an investment, not an ongoing significant cost. Once you have a local surplus established, you can simply buy what you use going forward - the same as any other JIT manufacturing process - with a minimal ongoing cost for storage space. As such, a businessman who wishes to invest in the in the longevity of the business over maximizing this year's profits would be happy to sacrifice some profit for the ability to remain solvent in the next supply chain breakdown. Because there will be another one.
  - HeyLaughingBoy 4y ago
    The choice is almost always there, but the overwhelming majority of people choose the cheap option. Seriously, for pretty much anything there's a cheap version and a more expensive, (usually) better quality version.
Dr_ReD 4y ago
> There's also something to be said for how modern financial capitalism has > squeezed redundancy out of everything. Supply chains are just-in-time, Hence the automotive/chips and other recent shortages...
- guywithahat 4y ago
  Are you implying we should have wasted billions manufacturing extra chips just in case there was a shortage and consumers didn't want to wait a year before buying a new car/truck?
  - marcosdumay 4y ago
    My bet is the cost wold be on the hundreds of thousands (yep, globally). But if you really want to push the envelope, you can go with high single digit millions.
  - _jal 4y ago
    I don't see anyone demanding a planned economy. I see people recognizing reality - JIT is efficient but fragile in the face of disruption. Seems to me the sensible thing to do would be to recognize that for what it is and try to strike the right balance in an uncertain world. Even if your concerns are strictly commercial, a couple points margin in good times is unlikely to balance a year of massively screwed up supply chains.
    - falcolas 4y ago
      Even the progenitors of JIT did not advocate for zero warehousing - they advocated for not warehousing components which could be manufactured on demand. Chips do not fall into this category.
    - guywithahat 4y ago
      What makes you think the right balance hasn't already been struck? It seems rational to me that a pandemic followed by a chip shortage driven in part by crypto would be extremely unlikely, and if they had two years of extra stock on hand that would almost suggest to me they were too prepared (i.e. wasting money). Like if the zombie apocalypse strikes tomorrow, you probably will be unprepared, not because you're bad at planning but because this was too unlikely to have reasonably prepared for
satisfice 4y ago
Good analysis.

dumpsterlid 4y ago

You hit the nail on the head

gameshot911 4y ago

Let's not forget the benefits either. Reduced redundancy is _good_ (as long as nothing fails in the chain, ofc). It enables society to make more, for lower costs. And it works remarkably well, overall.

falcolas 4y ago
But thats the problem being expressed - things will fail. Things will always fail, and ignoring that is the equivalent of burying your head in the sand and thinking your ass is covered.
- gameshot911 4y ago
  If things go right 8 times out of 10 overall, that's a net win. Expected value - I get Product X $2 cheaper if things go right, but lose $6 if things go wrong. Expected value = 2*.8-6*.2 = .4. Overall net positive.
  - falcolas 4y ago
    "The price for something is measurably higher if the manufacturer maintains a surplus of components with an inelastic supply" is not really true though. Once the initial investment in creating a stock of those items is done, there's only a minimal storage cost. For things like chips for cars, that storage cost is probably measured in double-digit dollars a year to create billions of dollars worth of vehicles. Is investing in a business to smooth over supply chain problems really so taboo to a modern businessman?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

pif 4y ago

> modern financial capitalism has squeezed redundancy out of everything If by "modern financial capitalism" you mean "customers who prefer cheaper to superior quality of product and/or service", then I agree with you.

BLanen 4y ago
If you're a naive economist and you think Homo Economicus is real.
falcolas 4y ago
How often are customers really given that choice, as opposed to companies making the decision on their behalf because customers are stupid (they just want a better horse after all). We can't buy what doesn't exist after all.
- pif 4y ago
  > How often are customers really given that choice? You and your competition produce two equivalent products. They sell theirs for $100: do you feel confident in pricing yours at $110 and base your commercial copy on "We rely on a more robust logistic chain in case of a world-wide catastrophe"?
  - falcolas 4y ago
    This isn't asking the customer to make a choice, it's asking a businessman if they're willing to invest in their business. And it is an investment, not an ongoing significant cost. Once you have a local surplus established, you can simply buy what you use going forward - the same as any other JIT manufacturing process - with a minimal ongoing cost for storage space. As such, a businessman who wishes to invest in the in the longevity of the business over maximizing this year's profits would be happy to sacrifice some profit for the ability to remain solvent in the next supply chain breakdown. Because there will be another one.
- HeyLaughingBoy 4y ago
  The choice is almost always there, but the overwhelming majority of people choose the cheap option. Seriously, for pretty much anything there's a cheap version and a more expensive, (usually) better quality version.

Dr_ReD 4y ago

> There's also something to be said for how modern financial capitalism has > squeezed redundancy out of everything. Supply chains are just-in-time, Hence the automotive/chips and other recent shortages...

guywithahat 4y ago
Are you implying we should have wasted billions manufacturing extra chips just in case there was a shortage and consumers didn't want to wait a year before buying a new car/truck?
- marcosdumay 4y ago
  My bet is the cost wold be on the hundreds of thousands (yep, globally). But if you really want to push the envelope, you can go with high single digit millions.
- _jal 4y ago
  I don't see anyone demanding a planned economy. I see people recognizing reality - JIT is efficient but fragile in the face of disruption. Seems to me the sensible thing to do would be to recognize that for what it is and try to strike the right balance in an uncertain world. Even if your concerns are strictly commercial, a couple points margin in good times is unlikely to balance a year of massively screwed up supply chains.
  - falcolas 4y ago
    Even the progenitors of JIT did not advocate for zero warehousing - they advocated for not warehousing components which could be manufactured on demand. Chips do not fall into this category.
  - guywithahat 4y ago
    What makes you think the right balance hasn't already been struck? It seems rational to me that a pandemic followed by a chip shortage driven in part by crypto would be extremely unlikely, and if they had two years of extra stock on hand that would almost suggest to me they were too prepared (i.e. wasting money). Like if the zombie apocalypse strikes tomorrow, you probably will be unprepared, not because you're bad at planning but because this was too unlikely to have reasonably prepared for

satisfice 4y ago

Good analysis.