Hacker News Reader

Comment by antris | Hacker News Reader

> For the sake of argument, let's just say that tomorrow Taiwan is suddenly taken over by another country

How about let's not? There are infinite possibilities you can imagine of things going wrong. Pulling one example out of an infinite list does nothing to address the argument itself, it's just fictional role play. And every time one plays a scenario out, they could always just go one more step towards a more catastrophic scenario, until we'd arrive at "A-ha, but as we see, Apple's strategy fails to address heat death of the universe! Got 'em!" Of course your suggested scenario isn't as absurd, and the global supply chains reliance on a few privately held companies is indeed problematic. But the discussion was about Apples strategy and how they prepare with more foresight than their competitors, succeeding better under pressure. Not that they are omnipotent gods that can control and prepare for everything.

View on HN

> There are infinite possibilities you can imagine of things going wrong. Pulling one example out of an infinite list does nothing to address the argument itself

You are wrong. This kind of example addresses the argument at its core.

Being "antifragile" is all about how you respond to low probability tail events such as this one.

If you become weaker as a result of such an event, you are not antifragile. You are fragile.

If you can withstand said event, you are not antifragile, you are just robust.

If you become stronger as a result of such an event, only then can you claim to be antifragile.

Haven't read "the antifragility book", but I'm still pretty sure antifragile does not mean immortal. The example in the article - muscles - grow when they are stressed, but they definitely can be destroyed also when enough stress is applied.

Or, if I am wrong, and indeed antifragile means immortal then I don't know why we are talking about antifragility rather than whether Apple is a company that cannot be affected negatively no matter what happens in the world. I'd also like to know why is there a need for a new synonym for immortality.

The book was written by Nassim Taleb and things like a global pandemic or supply chain collapse are exactly the kinds of things he talks about when he formulates idea such as antifragility.

Now, you are right: there's a limit to antifragility. I don't think the book clarifies this point.

But anyway, Taiwan being consumed by China is exactly the kind of thing that Black Swan and Antifragile deal with.

I mean, that's the whole point of the book.

Yes, but then you are talking about the fragility of the global supply chain system and capitalism. I agree, it is fragile, as is apparent with boom-bust cycles and things like covid or one ship getting stuck in a canal causing major disruptions. Not to mention how badly poor countries get shafted in the process. The global capitalist system is fragile, as history and current events show us.

But these problems are way, way larger than one single company. Are we really expecting Apple as a company within the global capitalist system to just isolate itself from the network and do everything themselves without relying on anyone anywhere? At that point no company in the world is antifragile, and never can be if it works within the capitalist system or relies on any sort of co-operation between people.

> Are we really expecting Apple as a company within the global capitalist system to just isolate itself from the network and do everything themselves without relying on anyone anywhere?

That's not really what it's about.

I would say an antifragile system is one that adapt to changes (even unexpected one).

A good example are businesses that were able to adapt to covid and earn more revenue by doing things like providing delivery services among other things.

I don't think antifragility is achievable by some kind of process. You probably need live players[0] at the helm to take the lead and figure out ways to adapt to new circumstances.

[0]: https://samoburja.com/live-versus-dead-players/

> Pulling one example out of an infinite list does nothing to address the argument itself, it's just fictional role play.

That’s true, but as a Taiwanese I can tell you Taiwan being taken over by another country is definitely in the shortlist of plausible scenarios. Not particularly likely, but definitely not fictional at all, maybe somewhere around Pearl Harbor possibility.

I suggest reading the whole comment. I address this concern directly in it.

Yes, there is a global supply chain fragility when it comes to a few companies controlling the supply of microchips. Nobody is suggesting that Apple somehow can do everything from scratch. Even if they had factories making the chips themselves, what if their raw material suppliers collapsed? What if a critical delivery route gets compromised, as happened with Ever Given? What if a war breaks out? What if, what if, what if... You can entertain any number of ideas. Everyone knows that the global supply chains have dependencies, and if something bad happens in the world, the economy and supply chains of the world suffer. This has nothing to do with Apple specifically.

I know you did, but it does not make the accusation less, uh, irritating to a Taiwanese, lacking a better expression (I don’t feel that strong, but do feel uncomfortable). The point is not how the threat can be addressed in what way, but you are greatly underestimating the possibility. Which is quite reasonable tbh, I don’t feel anything about wars in Africa and the Middle East and would likely underestimate how unstable things are when depending on entities in those areas, but it does not make the actual threat less worth considering.

Oh I see. I did not mean this as a political comment or an evaluation of the likelihood of the scenario playing out. Just pointing out that a single company cannot do much, if/when such things happen.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com