3 ms·
> Failing closed is typical of safes Unless it's a very large safe where people can walk inside, like a bank vault. The fire department gets very grumpy with y
by fl7305 3y ago
> Failing closed is typical of safes
Unless it's a very large safe where people can walk inside, like a bank vault. The fire department gets very grumpy with you if they fail closed and can trap people inside.
So if you want to force open a bank vault, stage a purported terrorist attack, and the FBI will cut power to the building as standard operating procedure. Voila, vault opens.
- godelski 3y agoSure, but this is literally the essence of failure analysis. Because you're demonstrating how nuance is essential to the process and how this means that there are no universal concepts. That simplicity and generalizability are often in contention. I'm not at why people don't understand that nuance is important because if it wasn't we wouldn't need experts. It's also weird to see people thinking nuance is required in their domain (explicitly or implicitly by means of assuming everyone else is an idiot for not understanding what they obtained through years of education. Yes I see the irony) but don't think it's required for other areas. Look at any online discussion here involving climate, nuclear, rockets, aerospace, and many other non programming stuff. Your example might also demonstrate this because the failure analysis is considerate of this by having a combination of fail open and fail closed gates in conjunction with the FBI not going to cut power to the bank until they arrive on scene which entirely defeats any terrorist or robber strategy because they the FBI are now the safe door and they're hard to pick open.
- anotherevan 3y agoI seem to remember a certain Christmas movie starring Bruce Willis where this was a plot point.