In the railway signalling industry (which for historically obvious reasons is obsessed with reliability) there even is a pattern of running different software implementing the same specification, written by different team, running on a different RTOS and different CPU architecture.
An interesting case study in this domain is to compare the Saturn V Launch Vehicle Digital Computer with the Apollo Guidance Computer
Now the LVDC, that was a real flight computer, triply redundant, every stage in the processing pipeline had to be vote confirmed, the works.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launch_Vehicle_Digital_Compute...
Compare the AGC, with no redundancy. a toy by comparison. But the AGC was much faster and lighter so they just shipped two of them(three if you count the one in the lunar module) and made sure it was really good at restarting fast.
There is a lesson to be learned here but I am not sure what it is. Worse is better? Can not fail vs fail gracefully?
Maybe if you know what the tradeoffs are and are ready to deal with the deficiencies (by rebooting fast). And didn't they had issues with the lunar module Guidance Computer on the first moon landing?
Restart your Claude Code sessions as often as possible
Their advantage in the satellite-internet industry is that they can launch stuff fast and cheap; very likely this drives different tradeoff decisions than the regime this article talks about.
We know Glenn is loquacious.