Hacker News Reader

Comment by hsn915 | Hacker News Reader

> 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.

View on HN

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/

Reply on news.ycombinator.com