The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at and repair.
I’ve had 2 Japanese cars. They’re reliable; but when something does break, it’s often hidden deep inside the engine so you need to have a mechanic pull the engine out and charge you $700 to replace a $10 part.
Is this not true true of most modern cars, not only Japanese ones?
Decades ago, drivers could and did repair engines themselves, but today’s cars require more knowledge, training, and tools than the hobbyist is likely to have.
The expense of repair says little about reliability. Mean time to failure would be better.
Expected cost per year, including purchase cost, repair cost, and cost of time spent dealing with failures, would be better.
BTW, cars from heavy snow country last somewhere between 2⁄3 and 1⁄2 as long as cars down south (no official statistics, just my observation). This is due to just a few days per year when the roads are salted. Do the math, and you’ll find it’s probably cheaper to take leave without pay and stay home from work on days after it snows—even before taking into account the time saved by not working.
The quote’s from Mostly Harmless, the fifth book in the Hitchhikers Trilogy. Buy here, read online here.
“All mechanical or electrical or quantum-mechanical or hydraulic or even wind, steam or piston-driven devices, are now required to have a certain legend emblazoned on them somewhere. It doesn’t matter how small the object is, the designers of the object have got to find a way of squeezing the legend in somewhere, because it is their attention which is being drawn to it rather than necessarily that of the user’s.”
Considering the source, I was surprised and a little disturbed when I noticed this legend didn’t seem to be well known in the Singularitarian community.
The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at and repair.
-- Douglas Adams
In that same vein:
-Nassim Nicholas Taleb, The Black Swan p.203
-Nassim Nicholas Taleb, Fooled by Randomness
Fear invasion from Mars!
Better: Rank beliefs according to their plausibility multiplied by the harm they may cause.
Unless you’re risk averse.
I’ve had 2 Japanese cars. They’re reliable; but when something does break, it’s often hidden deep inside the engine so you need to have a mechanic pull the engine out and charge you $700 to replace a $10 part.
Is this not true true of most modern cars, not only Japanese ones?
Decades ago, drivers could and did repair engines themselves, but today’s cars require more knowledge, training, and tools than the hobbyist is likely to have.
The expense of repair says little about reliability. Mean time to failure would be better.
Expected cost per year, including purchase cost, repair cost, and cost of time spent dealing with failures, would be better.
BTW, cars from heavy snow country last somewhere between 2⁄3 and 1⁄2 as long as cars down south (no official statistics, just my observation). This is due to just a few days per year when the roads are salted. Do the math, and you’ll find it’s probably cheaper to take leave without pay and stay home from work on days after it snows—even before taking into account the time saved by not working.
That is inconsistent with what I imagined the well-known fact of “Japanese reliability” to mean.
Here’s some context...
The quote’s from Mostly Harmless, the fifth book in the Hitchhikers Trilogy. Buy here, read online here.
“All mechanical or electrical or quantum-mechanical or hydraulic or even wind, steam or piston-driven devices, are now required to have a certain legend emblazoned on them somewhere. It doesn’t matter how small the object is, the designers of the object have got to find a way of squeezing the legend in somewhere, because it is their attention which is being drawn to it rather than necessarily that of the user’s.”
Considering the source, I was surprised and a little disturbed when I noticed this legend didn’t seem to be well known in the Singularitarian community.