It's like saying, "It's an outrage that this drink holds only 37 ounces! For this kind of money I expect it to hold at least 38 ounces. I would pay for that."
-
My 4 downvoters are clearly a lot worse at math at I am.
Let me spell it out for you:
"Reliability of 100000000000000 is unacceptable! I need exactly 1000000000000000 of reliability (a factor 10 difference only)."
If you don't see how that is funny, the problem is with you, not me. That's a hilariously specific, and small, change.
"Man, having a 30% chance of a bit flipping if I read 4 TB is unacceptable. I should have to read like...40 TB for a 30% chance of a bit flip!"
It's particularly funny because in the face of this being unacceptable, I would expect a solution, like error correction, that adds 5-10 orders of magnitude (many bit flips have to all happen in the same sector, by coincidence, at the already low 10^14 rate), for it to make it past the error correction layer.
The other thing is that given that we're talking about ERROR RATES, I cannot possibly believe that they have it down to such a specific number as 100000000000000. It would have to be a range. You should target more than 1 order of magnitude to get something more reliable (like ECC RAM versus regular RAM). [1]
Just like the error margin on 37 ounces must be like 37-40 ounces anyway.
[1] first reference I found: http://lambda-diode.com/opinion/ecc-memory-2
"I computed that if you have 4 GiB of memory, you have 96% chance of getting a bit flip in three days because of cosmic rays. SECDED ECC would reduce that to a negligible one chance in six billion." That is, for example, a change of
1 per 34359738368 bits (rounding 96% to 100%) to 1 per 206158430208000000000 bits (multiplying by 6 billion).
34359738368 bits is 10^10.
206158430208000000000 is 10^20.
That's the kind of change (give or take) that I was expecting parent to suggest - not one order of magnitude!