-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
A related concept is the way you want to send signals in a redundant (ie imprecise/wasteful) way to compensate for a lossy channel
Show this thread -
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
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Delicate fits some of that meaning
-
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
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
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.
-
One of the useful concepts I wish was more out there was the original meaning of “fail-safe”
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
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".
-
REQUIRING too much precision is often a problem actually
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
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
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.