5 ms·
I'm not saying you're wrong, but: "Network effects"? You mean like, "I'd be fine, but I depend on a service from a Windows machine, so I'm still screwed" ? >
by AlbertCory 2y ago
I'm not saying you're wrong, but:
"Network effects"? You mean like, "I'd be fine, but I depend on a service from a Windows machine, so I'm still screwed" ?
> The number of platforms you'd need for this much safety is impractically high
I don't see why this becomes an impossible problem. If all the essential services are not provided by a single software infrastructure, then we have the required diversity, right?
- dehrmann 2y ago> "Network effects"? You mean like... In the case of airports, losing ATC at just a few major US airports would effectively paralyze the network. Or yes, the case you mentioned where you depend on four SaaS offerings, and odds are one of them will go down.
- AlbertCory 2y agoLike I said: I'm not arguing with you. It's ironic that the original DARPA justification for packet-switching was, if a nuclear war takes down some nodes, the packets will still get through somehow.