|
@drethelin | |||||
|
Is there a word for precision that makes things less robust? In this case thinking of a deadbolt bathroom lock that’s perfectly aligned vs a hook and loop lock. One stops working if the door warps a little
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Миша
@drethelin
|
18. lip |
|
|
||
|
Миша
@drethelin
|
19. lip |
|
A related concept is the way you want to send signals in a redundant (ie imprecise/wasteful) way to compensate for a lossy channel
|
||
|
|
||
|
Миша
@drethelin
|
19. lip |
|
If you have a Velcro attachment it’s useful for it to be broader than strictly necessary to hold so you don’t have to be precise every time you attach it
|
||
|
|
||
|
Fate Of Twist
@FateOfTwist_
|
18. lip |
|
Delicate fits some of that meaning
|
||
|
|
||
|
Миша
@drethelin
|
18. lip |
|
Fair, although in this case the lock is perfectly sturdy and both parts of it are in great shape, just moved apart from where they should be
|
||
|
|
||
|
pavedwalden
@pavedwalden
|
19. lip |
|
When I’m discussing a design with a coworker we sometimes just call that “fragile” and it’s understood that you’re not criticizing the way it works in the expected case, you’re saying it would be a good choice if only it didn’t have such a messy failure mode.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Миша
@drethelin
|
19. lip |
|
One of the useful concepts I wish was more out there was the original meaning of “fail-safe”
|
||
|
|
||
|
faun
@makoConstruct
|
19. lip |
|
The problem is not precision }:<
You can engineer a hook and loop with as much precision and it will still be a slightly better hook and loop. There is no such thing as too much precision.
I vote for "brittle".
|
||
|
|
||
|
Миша
@drethelin
|
19. lip |
|
REQUIRING too much precision is often a problem actually
|
||
|
|
||
|
Миша
@drethelin
|
18. lip |
|
Tolerance mismatch might be a useful way to put it. The door/doorframe/house can shift by centimeters but the lock won’t slot in properly if it’s off by millimeters
|
||
|
|
||