“Úspory z rozsahu” seems quite legit for “economies of scale”, but you could still say something like “because producing things in bulk is more efficient” and then everyone would get what you mean, and it is only twice as long.
The case for “single point of failure” is stronger; even Wikipedia does not have a Slovak article on this concept. It is a more complicated concept, because you need to specifically express that the problem is not “X mail fail”, but rather that “the failure of X alone, no matter how unlikely, would collapse the entire system”. A clumsy explanation would likely be misinterpreted to mean “he believes that X is likely to fail” and result in responses about how X is quite reliable—which is not the objection you tried to make.
I am outsourcing this problem to Facebook, will report suggestions later.
EDIT:
The first suggestions were (translated back to English): “critical”, “Achilles’ heel”, and “the weakest link”, which… do not express exactly the same idea. -- The Achilles’ heel is an X that is fragile in itself, I think. The weakest link suggests that this the most vulnerable place in a sequence, rather that the problem is lack of parallelism. “Critical” doesn’t feel specific enough… though maybe that’s just about me.
More ideas: “the entire plan stands—or falls—on X”, “without X the entire plan would collapse”, “a bottleneck” (but this is about throughput, not redundancy), “a fatal weakness” (has the connotation that X is a weakness per se, not that the system is weak because its overreliance on X).
I think you may be exaggerating this.
“Úspory z rozsahu” seems quite legit for “economies of scale”, but you could still say something like “because producing things in bulk is more efficient” and then everyone would get what you mean, and it is only twice as long.
The case for “single point of failure” is stronger; even Wikipedia does not have a Slovak article on this concept. It is a more complicated concept, because you need to specifically express that the problem is not “X mail fail”, but rather that “the failure of X alone, no matter how unlikely, would collapse the entire system”. A clumsy explanation would likely be misinterpreted to mean “he believes that X is likely to fail” and result in responses about how X is quite reliable—which is not the objection you tried to make.
I am outsourcing this problem to Facebook, will report suggestions later.
EDIT:
The first suggestions were (translated back to English): “critical”, “Achilles’ heel”, and “the weakest link”, which… do not express exactly the same idea. -- The Achilles’ heel is an X that is fragile in itself, I think. The weakest link suggests that this the most vulnerable place in a sequence, rather that the problem is lack of parallelism. “Critical” doesn’t feel specific enough… though maybe that’s just about me.
More ideas: “the entire plan stands—or falls—on X”, “without X the entire plan would collapse”, “a bottleneck” (but this is about throughput, not redundancy), “a fatal weakness” (has the connotation that X is a weakness per se, not that the system is weak because its overreliance on X).