I know what you mean, but FWIW: You probably mean “move fast and break things”. “Fail fast” is usually about not hiding/carrying with you potentially bad errors, and instead “fail fast” when you know there’s an issue. It’s an important tool for reliability.
An unrealistic example: Better to fail fast and not start the car at all when there’s abnormal voltage fluctuations, then explode while driving ;)
why though?
technically they are much simpler, with less moving parts. if anything they should be MORE reliable
Gonna guess it’s the half baked software?
I was guessing crappy build quality, but software is a great way to introduce planned obsolescence now that i’m thinking about it.
Probably the “fail fast” design mentality
I know what you mean, but FWIW: You probably mean “move fast and break things”. “Fail fast” is usually about not hiding/carrying with you potentially bad errors, and instead “fail fast” when you know there’s an issue. It’s an important tool for reliability.
An unrealistic example: Better to fail fast and not start the car at all when there’s abnormal voltage fluctuations, then explode while driving ;)
Maybe they actually meant “fail fast” because it’s cheaper to build? It would certainly explain a lot.
Not quite sure myself if I’m kidding or not.