All of these have something very specific and very anti-modern about them, they are all the result of behaviour that doesn't focus on maximum strength or efficiency or low price, but rather on that magic spot where efficiency meets controlled failure: anti-fragility. Thread... 
In a small country like the Netherlands, a tiny train error on one end can snowball to a complete system collapse on the other end of the country. Unlike cars trains have only limited routing options and for decades Europe has been plagued with late trains. Recently this changed:
A breakthrough in operational research led to algorithms that could anticipate train failures and suggest routing options as if they had been planned, were developed, not an optimal, but "a near-optimal plan that can handle as much disruption as possible."
phys.org/news/2010-05-a…
phys.org/news/2010-05-a…
Human have been doing this kind of planning for centuries but as the systems grow exponentially with every added line, route, train, station, crossing etc. it becomes impossible to handle. So instead of designing for optimal efficiency the Dutch now design for anti-fragility.
Another example is children learning through playing, to develop ways to handle failure: to take a fall, to cope with group dynamics, unjustice, but also physically, by hardening their bones through running around barefoot they become stronger as adults:
And now engineering. 2000 yrs ago builders in Japan learned how to put up stone walls that become STRONGER when infiltrated by water and tree roots, the total opposite of how modern walls and fortifications are built. Imagine a Western engineer planting trees to protect a street?
The result in Japan is that we have stone walls that have never failed, through thousands of years and as many earthquakes, through rains and typhoons and trees being born and dying right on top of them.
In the same way, anti-fragile engineering philosophy is how the Celts of Europe could build durable fortifications, how the medieval Russians could block steppe nomads from thousands of miles of borders with minimal manpower...
...and how the Dutch could build magnificent cities in waterlogged sandy deltas, or how the Venetians turned a swampy lagoon to one of the wonders of the world: by anticipating failure and building with materials that grow stronger when subjected to the ravages of water.
We also build anti-fragile homes, as this centuries old Norwegian mountain home. Look how the walls are absolutely bare, the roof even alive, with an even green "mat" of living material. When something here fails, we can see it immediately and replace it in matter of hours...
...whereas a modern home will sheet the walls and hide the roof under layers and layers of material. We know water WILL find a way into our walls and roof, yet we build homes where water infiltration will be impossible to detect until it is too late, with catastrophic results.
A traditional house is built more or less like a ship, it will withstand amounts of water over centuries that will turn a modern home to mush in a few years and if a part goes bad you change only that one out, not a whole wall. A sod roof even requires water to function properly.
So how can you implement anti-fragility in your own life? Ask the house salesman "What do I do when water comes inside the walls?" and walk away when he can't answer you or try to explain it away or give you a five year guarantee or tell you that it will have to be replaced...
...Go barefoot hiking with your kids where possible, lift weights, subject yourself to enjoyable hardships. Sleep under the stars, forage for food. Burn those sneakers!
...if you were a town planner you'd be sued to oblivion if you built so many homes that there was no room for schools or fire stations. Why is it any different with offices? Never build more offices than can be staffed by people living within a leisurely fifteen minute walk...
...if you are a politician do your bosses (the citizens) a favor and only build with materials they can source, handle, and repair, by themselves. Why hold them hostage to an unstable global supply chain when it is not even necessary?
The pattern "less than optimal but with maximum robustness" repeats itself in the case of medieval peasants in England and modern peasants in Peru: they both practiced the same form of robust agriculture by dividing their plots into many narrow strips of land scattered about...
...as a form of agricultural risk management. By scattering their strips of land they ensure that even if strip goes bad, they can still rely on the others strips: they pay a little in efficiency but gain everything in not starving to death. Here's Charles Marohn in Strong Towns:
Anti-fragile roofing material: as the thatched roof is assaulted from above by rain and snow, it is continually strengthened from underneath by the symbiotic action of irori hearth fire: the heat dries the roof from inside, the smoke cures it, the soot protects the straws.
