
How Complex Systems Fail (1998) [pdf] - swolpers
https://web.mit.edu/2.75/resources/random/How%20Complex%20Systems%20Fail.pdf
======
dang
Threads from 2017:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15002683](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15002683)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14127543](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14127543)

2014:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8282923](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8282923)

------
mcphage
"Slowly at first, then all at once."

------
kuu
I guess this is one of the main keys:

 _A corollary to the preceding point is that complex systems run as broken
systems. The system continues to function because it contains so many
redundancies and because people can make it function, despite the presence of
many flaws._

------
packet_nerd
The question we should be asking is whether these complex systems are actually
required.

In absolute terms, our ancestors lived much much simpler lives and somehow
managed to survive. So, it's not that we're required to have such complex
systems, it's that we've decided that the reward is higher than the cost
(which is fine). But, I wonder, how accurately have the costs and the rewards
been evaluated? I suspect that we don't always take into account the full cost
and risks of complexity. If we did, I suspect we'd build fewer highly complex
systems, and the systems we did build would be better.

If you think of the entire IT experience as a system, somehow all the various
social, economic, and technical forces have conspired to produce massive
complexity which shows in constant bugs, failures, broken websites, and
security breaches. I wish we could just step back, take a deep breath, and
find ways to simplify and clean some of this up.

~~~
rhacker
Technically we could simply stop all of this IT stuff, re-allocate the world
so everyone gets an acre and dissolve the government. No one would work more
than a few hours per day (tending the garden, etc..) The problem is trust. We
can't trust someone else because there will be stealing. Those thieves will
meet others like them that steal, rape, pillage. Cycle of mis-trust starts all
over again and societies form to do something about it. Then things go from
there. Now that I think about what I write, we have Facebook because of
thievery (just a joke). I do get your point of not starting over, but just
listing the case why we get complexity. Some of it is likely not necessary but
it's usually because of something.

~~~
jmcqk6
Technically we could not do this. This is wildly inaccurate. The massive
redistribution of population alone would be totally infeasible.

And if everyone is going to make due with what they can grow in their acre,
how is famine going to be dealt with? Is everyone expected to become
vegetarian? What about diseases? What about transportation?

~~~
pixl97
Who cares about transportation, lack of water would kill the majority very
quickly.

------
dalbasal
In this context, it's interesting (to me) how different "how" is from "why,"
in terms of the answers you might come up with... especially (but not the
only) when "complex systems" involve people.

------
kevas
You may enjoy this book: [https://www.amazon.com/Logic-Failure-Recognizing-
Avoiding-Si...](https://www.amazon.com/Logic-Failure-Recognizing-Avoiding-
Situations/dp/0201479486/ref=nodl_)

~~~
xtiansimon
I second Dorner’s book. Very readable and equally insightful.

------
Anon84
The author seems to be using a rather narrow definition of complex system
without actually ever specifying it. Complex systems
([https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_system](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_system))
are strange beasts that occur in all aspect of science and technology and fail
in spectacularly different ways.

~~~
di4na
Interestingly, i promise you they do not use a so narrow definition. Dr
Richard Cook is one of the leading researcher in this particular space. His
definition of "complex system" is used here indeed in that wikipedia
definition you provide and the way they fails may seem spectacularly
different, but the research in them have shown that they are not so different
and all stems from the same "laws of nature".

I would be happy to provide links to the research if you are interested :)

~~~
Anon84
This is precisely my point. You're focusing on specifically engineered
systems. Complex Systems occur naturally in nature (there's even a whole
branch of statistical physics that studies them). So yes, the author might be
well know in the specific reliability engineering sub-field, but it's still
using a rather narrow definition of what a complex system is and how it fails.

To clarify, there is nothing wrong with using a narrow definition or in
discussing a specific aspect of a grander topic. I just wish the definition
was made clearer.

~~~
di4na
I think my point is more that i am not focusing on these at all :)

But the interest in these is more visible because we can modify them and build
experiment in them.

~~~
Anon84
A very different sort of beast...
[https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6404/aa5a87](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6404/aa5a87)

