This is marketing 101, they are making their product sound impressive by throwing improbable numbers but not even the moron in a hurry would truly believe that they can store their 1 object and then check in on it in 100 billion years later. The important number (the 99.99...%) is there in the text, the rest is a hyperbolic and arbitrary example but it is only intended to provide a frame of reference to numbers which are not easily comprehendable into an MTBF.
I would also suggest they may not be using historical data to calculate their object durability, rather a worst case calculation of current failure models. That's pretty standard practice in all future risk modelling, especially for new systems. Comparing theoretical future risk vs evaluated past resilience is a slightly different beast.
I would also suggest they may not be using historical data to calculate their object durability, rather a worst case calculation of current failure models. That's pretty standard practice in all future risk modelling, especially for new systems. Comparing theoretical future risk vs evaluated past resilience is a slightly different beast.