[toomanybeersies]

> because capitalism favors maximizing profit and considering tolerances too wide as an expense.

Lack of foresight isn't exclusive to capitalism. Would socialist data centres be built to handle temperatures several degrees above the highest ever recorded temperature?

Even in a socialist economy, building systems with an excessively high tolerances would be seen as a poor allocation of resources.

It could be equally argued that capitalism favours private companies like Google ensuring their DCs are as fault tolerant as possible, to ensure they have a competitive advantage. There's also plenty of cases where companies sell unnecessary and excessive goods and services to maximise their own profit.

> and being done with it potentially forever if its made to be repairable/upgradeable

DC cooling systems are repairable and upgradable. They're a far cry from a residential split system AC unit.

[gm3dmo]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/OGAS The book "How Not to Network a Nation: The Uneasy History of the Soviet Internet" linked to in that article discusses many of these topics.

[mschuster91]

> Even in a socialist economy, building systems with an excessively high tolerances would be seen as a poor allocation of resources.

Huh? GDR and Soviet made machinery, vehicles, even glassware for pubs [1] was made with sometimes ridiculous margins and tolerances to ensure longevity and easy repairability and was famous for it. Even pre-reunification Western made products such as Bosch, AEG, Hilti or Siemens were famous for building stuff that sometimes outlasted the owners (such as my 80s Hilti drill, which served three generations of my family and likely will still work when I have children of my own).

[1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfest

[happyopossum]

> Soviet made machinery, vehicles, even glassware for pubs [1] was made with sometimes ridiculous margins and tolerances to ensure longevity

Bollocks. Soviet machinery is simple and crude, typically many decades behind their western counterparts.

[mschuster91]

Yes, but that was neither my point nor the point of the person I replied to.

"Keep it simple and stupid" is a tried and true engineering principle. The higher tolerances a design uses, the easier it is to manufacture and to repair, and the less likely it is to fail from wear and tear in the first place.

A socialist economy, where waiting for a new car could take anywhere from five to twenty years (!), definitely has to prioritize simpler, more (fault-)tolerant designs even if that takes a bit more resources to account for said tolerance. For example, a modern car heavily using fibreglass and plastic in the chassis may weigh a good load less than your average Lada or whatever that was made out of metal, but it could easily be repaired by your average farmer using tools they had in their shed.

Random side fact, this is a major cause why farmers are paying record prices for tractors nearly half a century old [1]. Or why the Russians are currently using so much ages-old stuff in the Ukraine war - modern tanks require a lot of logistics for repair and spare parts, but these old Russian clunkers? You can piss into the tank and it will probably drive on it. (Yes, I know, the Russians haven't been maintaining their tanks properly, which is a major factor in why they were not able to take Kyiw)

[1] https://www.startribune.com/for-tech-weary-midwest-farmers-4...

[g8oz]

Simple and crude is not necessarily in opposition to robustness.

[ndsipa_pomu]

Modern capitalism does have a built-in short-term view though. Companies can try planning ahead for decades of use, but if someone comes in and designs for a shorter term, they'll be a lower bidder and thus more likely to get the job. By the time that the short-comings are discovered, the lower bidder is long gone. The stock market also provides an incentive to just aim for short term gains at the expense of the long term.

Socialism can prioritise quick fixes or long term solutions, but it depends on the wisdom of the people involved as to whether they'll build in enough capacity to allow for future climate changes.

[icare_1er]

Like most people making that commentary about "short-termism", you'd rather buy cheap clothes made in China than pay double for something local that lasts 5 times longer.

[ndsipa_pomu]

You have nothing on which to base that observation and as such, you're not even wrong as your comment is meaningless