>> we're going to treat four simultaneous meteors as impossible. Which is great, but then one the day, five of them hit at the same time.
> I think that suggests that there were not bigger fish to fry :)
I can see this problem arising in two ways:
(1) Faulty assumptions about failure probabilities: You might presume that meteors are independent, so simultaneous impacts are exponentially unlikely. But really they are somehow correlated (meteor clusters?), so simultaneous failures suddenly become much more likely.
(2) Growth of failure probabilities with system size: A meteor hit on earth is extremely rare. But in the future there might be datacenters in the whole galaxy, so there's a center being hit every month or so.
In real, active infrastructure there are probably even more pitfalls, because estimating small probabilities is really hard.
> I think that suggests that there were not bigger fish to fry :)
I can see this problem arising in two ways:
(1) Faulty assumptions about failure probabilities: You might presume that meteors are independent, so simultaneous impacts are exponentially unlikely. But really they are somehow correlated (meteor clusters?), so simultaneous failures suddenly become much more likely.
(2) Growth of failure probabilities with system size: A meteor hit on earth is extremely rare. But in the future there might be datacenters in the whole galaxy, so there's a center being hit every month or so.
In real, active infrastructure there are probably even more pitfalls, because estimating small probabilities is really hard.