Media files are encrypted, divided, replicated
Shouldn’t that be
Media files are encrypted, divided, erasure coded
Yes, they also sliced to segments, then - erasure stripes, which are sliced to erasure shares, then these shares are combined to the unique pieces and then - distributed, not replicated.
But do the potential customers want to see these overwhelming details, which are available there:
and in several blogs with more details?
That is my point. If there is no replication then Storj should not use that term in their publications.
2 Likes
Yes, I shared this concern with the team and explained my expectations and guessing.
For me the promotion looks ok, because all these details we can explain later. We do not need to overwhelm our potential customers with all complex maths right from the start, as we did in the past.
4 Likes
That’s correct, but I’m not referring to complex math; I’m concerned about providing accurate information.
One of the internet’s great features is that it allows us to link to detailed explanations such as the concept of erasure coding. You could even consider adding a hover-over popup to provide a brief summary. You even have that blog article that you have linked to that explicitly states that “replication is bad for decentralized storage”, it seems contradictory that another Storj article claims Storj uses replication. This inconsistency is confusing and doesn’t make sense to me.
Of course I understand your intention to simplify complex concepts, but there’s a fine line between simplification and spreading misinformation. Written information on the internet gets indexed and disseminated further by search engines, social media and more articles and at the end can lead to misconceptions. It is the same with all those people still believing Storj is a blockchain company.
And at the end you have it that potential users are going to believe that Storj is a crypto company that stores their customer data in the blockchain that runs in datacenters and gets replicated all over the world.
And this couldn’t be further from the truth.
2 Likes
A post was split to a new topic: The broken link in https://storj.io/blog/2019/01/reputation-matters-when-it-comes-to-storage-nodes/
Shouldn’t that be
Media files are encrypted,erasure coded, divided,
Actually you even have it on the new website like this:
4 Likes
Got ChatGPT to overheat a bit and suggest some better wording. The simplest ones that are technically correct: redundantly encoded, or made fault-tolerant. Not perfect.
If anybody wants a lecture (by ChatGPT) on why there’s no nice single verb form for made fault-tolerant:
Lecture hidden
Certainly! The difficulty in making fault-tolerant into a verb, particularly one that sounds natural, stems from several linguistic and morphological factors:
1. Compound Adjective Structure
Fault-tolerant is a compound adjective, formed by combining a noun (fault) with an adjective (tolerant). Compound adjectives like this are relatively common in technical and scientific English (e.g., heat-resistant, waterproof), where they serve a descriptive function. These compounds are often used attributively (e.g., fault-tolerant system) or predicatively (e.g., the system is fault-tolerant), but they rarely appear as verbs.
Morphologically, compound adjectives tend to resist verbalization because their function is inherently descriptive, not dynamic. Turning a compound adjective into a verb would require transforming a static quality into an action, which is an unusual move in English syntax and morphology.
2. Semantic Complexity
Fault-tolerant encapsulates a fairly complex meaning: the ability of a system to continue operating in the presence of faults or errors. Converting this concept into a verb requires condensing the nuance of “having built-in resilience against faults” into a single, dynamic action. The semantic complexity here contributes to the difficulty of finding a concise, elegant verb form because fault tolerance is more of a state than an action, and English verbs typically denote actions, processes, or states that can change over time.
Attempting to create a verb out of fault-tolerant often results in an awkward construction because English lacks a straightforward morphological process for converting complex, multi-word states into verbs. This is why you end up with less elegant, periphrastic alternatives like make fault-tolerant or add fault tolerance.
3. Suffixation Limitations
English commonly uses certain suffixes to convert adjectives or nouns into verbs (e.g., -ize as in modernize, or -ify as in solidify). However, fault-tolerant does not easily lend itself to these suffixes due to its internal structure.
- -ize suffix: If we try fault-tolerantize, the result is both semantically unclear and phonetically awkward. Adding -ize often works better with simpler or more abstract concepts (e.g., finalize, theorize), whereas fault-tolerant is a very concrete, compound-specific technical term.
- -ify suffix: Similarly, fault-tolerantify sounds convoluted and does not naturally convey the intended meaning. This suffix is usually added to simpler adjectives (e.g., purify, simplify), not to multi-word compounds.
Because fault-tolerant is already a multi-part term, applying standard verb-forming suffixes results in unwieldy and non-intuitive formations.
4. Stress Pattern and Phonological Constraints
Phonetically, fault-tolerant has a primary stress on the first syllable of fault and a secondary stress on tol- in tolerant. When we try to verbify this phrase, we’re left with stress patterns that sound unnatural in English for a single-word verb. English verbs typically have one primary stress on the root (e.g., activate, generate), while fault-tolerant would introduce an awkward combination of primary and secondary stresses that doesn’t suit the rhythmic structure of most verbs.
5. Periphrasis as a Natural Solution in English
English often resorts to periphrasis (i.e., a multi-word phrase) to express complex ideas that don’t easily condense into a single word. This is particularly true for technical terms or phrases that combine multiple layers of meaning, as in fault-tolerant. This tendency toward periphrasis is why we see phrases like make fault-tolerant or add fault tolerance rather than a single verb form.
Periphrasis allows for flexibility in conveying complex ideas without forcing them into an unnatural morphological structure. Thus, English speakers naturally gravitate towards verb phrases that preserve the semantic integrity of the original term without creating phonetically or syntactically awkward neologisms.
Summary
In summary, the difficulty of turning fault-tolerant into a verb arises from its compound structure, semantic complexity, morphological constraints (particularly with suffixation), phonological awkwardness, and English’s natural tendency towards periphrasis for complex technical concepts. These factors collectively contribute to the “ugliness” of any attempts to verbify fault-tolerant, making multi-word verb phrases a more linguistically acceptable solution.
1 Like