3 ms·
I hate it. Once the number gets so small beyond comprehension it’s hard to believe the validity. It reminds me of the Feynman’s statements during the Space Shut
by kcb 4y ago
I hate it. Once the number gets so small beyond comprehension it’s hard to believe the validity. It reminds me of the Feynman’s statements during the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster.
> Feynman was disturbed by two aspects of this practice. First, NASA management assigned a probability of failure to each individual bolt, sometimes claiming a probability of 1 in 10^8, i.e. one in one hundred million. Feynman pointed out that it is impossible to calculate such a remote possibility with any scientific rigor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_Commission_Report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_Commission_Report
Unless S3 can survive nuclear war or an asteroid hitting the earth, I don’t buy it.
- lopkeny12ko 4y agoThere is rigor behind the claim. Check out this talk from a few years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzRyrvUF-C0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzRyrvUF-C0
- dgacmu 4y agoThere's rigor within the assumptions. The problem is when the assumptions are wrong - most notably around failure independence. Data center fire? Accounted for. Simultaneous terrorist attack / asteroid (as per GP), / nuclear war on all data centers? Maybe not. Where does insider threat fit in on that spectrum? We don't know. I'm personally fine with the claim as I understand the methodology and assumptions but it has to be interpreted carefully.
- chaxor 4y agoOne bit change in a sea of 100TB is quite a small percentage. Could work that way.
- daxfohl 4y agoYeah, the most depressing part of my job is when I have to calculate the SLO metrics for our directors. The first pass of stuff we control is always way within SLO. Then we have to subtract stuff where some third party messes up, or like the request doesn't even get to our service and it always puts us in the red.