Opposite of Redundant?

Greg D wrote: Catholic: Nundant
Philosopher: One-N-donedant
Maga: Trumpdant
Astronomer: Singularidant
Enviromentalist: Ecoretardant
Socialist: Your-single-piece-belongs-to-everyone-dant
Alex Zebastian: All-your-single-pieces-belong-to-me-dant.
Tradiban:  use-your-single-brain-once-dant
Excess skin dog: Re-pugdant.

I've Been-there-and-dundant. 

Greg D wrote: Catholic: Nundant
Philosopher: One-N-donedant
Maga: Trumpdant
Astronomer: Singularidant
Enviromentalist: Ecoretardant
Socialist: Your-single-piece-belongs-to-everyone-dant
Alex Zebastian: All-your-single-pieces-belong-to-me-dant.
Tradiban:  use-your-single-brain-once-dant
Excess skin dog: Re-pugdant.

This post deserves a Dundie

America run-no-dun-dun

Sam Skovgaard wrote:

Isn't this pic from a MP post years ago? Wasn't this question asked with it? Seems familiar. 

NASA designates components whose failure means the death of the crew (i.e., there's no backup) as "Criticality 1." An example is the O-rings in the Challenger disaster.

Seth Cohen wrote: NASA designates components whose failure means the death of the crew (i.e., there's no backup) as "Criticality 1." An example is the O-rings in the Challenger disaster.

Not according to Billy Bob Thornton in Armageddon. "We at NASA don't take chances. We double up on everything." So they send Bruce Willis AND Ben Affleck on TWO kick-ass rides.

F Loyd wrote:

Isn't this pic from a MP post years ago? Wasn't this question asked with it? Seems familiar. 

Here's where I found it: Missing the Point

Sam Skovgaard wrote:

Here's where I found it: Missing the Point

Yeah, I saw that. I remember this being an entirely too long thread a while back. Lost in the endless shitpost history of MP though. 

essential or singular

This set up I have seen often and have no problem rapping through the ring! If it’s in good shape. But to the OPs question. I would go “DumbDumbDundant” with appropriate ominous music behind it

Except it isn't singular, it's using two anchors.
The anchor was duplicated, but in a way that added an additional unnecessary failure point.
Anti-redundant.

It’s redundant. If that rappel ring is bomber it’s no different than a single locker

For rappel. Never top rope fixed gear

Señor Arroz wrote:

Although the word for redundant in German is "redundant." 

So ... what's the opposite of "redundant" in German?

sgt.sausage wrote:

So ... what's the opposite of "redundant" in German?

Nicht Redundant 

Sam Skovgaard wrote: What word would you use to describe the opposite of redundant? 

Considering a spectrum of safety, I think insufficient is the opposite of redundant and that sufficient is in the middle of the two.

Sam Skovgaard wrote: We all like having redundancy in our systems, where the failure of a single component does not cause catastrophic failure.

What word would you use to describe the opposite of redundant?  Where failure of any component of a multi-component system causes catastrophe?  I can't seem to think of a word in the English language to describe this concept.

Here is an example of what I'm talking about.  In this rappel setup, failure of either bolt means decking.  

That anchor is not redundant. When properly threaded, one rappels off a single point. The remaining point is a backup that engages in case of catastrophic failure. And the ring and chain won't fail. Duplicating those makes no sense. True, in that case the anchor would be redundant but not in a good way.

Maybe the manufacturing processes are redundant?  And for that reason no component is duplicated in the security chain (harness, belay device, rope, etc.)

Even in the case of trad anchors without a solid point (thread, tree, horn, etc.), the load is distributed as best as possible and failure of a point should allow the system to continue working but the system is now compromised. Every component is engaged in the system.

TL;DR: Users do not introduce redundancy into recreational climbing systems.

The chain and ring are redundant by virtue of being over-constructed with a strength of at least 10 times the anticipated load AND can be easily inspected. The anchors themselves (and the rock) are the unknown quantity so duplication is often felt desitable.

Sam Skovgaard wrote: We all like having redundancy in our systems, where the failure of a single component does not cause catastrophic failure.

What word would you use to describe the opposite of redundant?  Where failure of any component of a multi-component system causes catastrophe?  I can't seem to think of a word in the English language to describe this concept.

Essential. 

Jon Nelson wrote: Essential. 

Huh? 

Reread the question.