As @Civil_Guy said, the kilogram was redefined in terms of fundamental constants, using a device called a Kibble balance. In the run-up to the redefinition, the “counting atoms” approach was a leading contender.
Despite the Kibble/Planck-constant approach ultimately being selected, resolving discrepancies between the two techniques is an active area of research.
That’s why with inertial (i.e. dead-reckoning) navigation you might find it advisable to use three instruments and go with majority rule.
If all three disagree (or if one fails) than it’s clear you have no idea where you are and it’s time to determine your position using another method entirely (like GPS) and recalibrate the inertial instruments.
I know you’re summarizing mightily and only partly serious. I’d say it more like
If all 3 are seemingly working normally they’ll still disagree some. You assume you’re somewhere in/near the triangle formed by the 3 fixes. The smaller and more equilateral the triangle, the happier the nav officer is.
If two agree to typical tolerances and the third is a long way away, or stone dead, strike an ellipse around 2 two positions you have. But with a larger than usual confidence interval. And start worrying.
If they’re each in major disagreement w the other(s), you are well and truly lost until you come up w some alternate means to fix your position.
As is overly oxygenated water. Not so much the kind with oxygen gas dissolved in it (which is fine), but the kind with an extra oxygen atom in each molecule (aka hydrogen peroxide).