4 ms·
There's quite a lot of people talking about how this is their own fault, that they should have expected it, that they should have been prepared. Victim blaming,
by glogla 8y ago
There's quite a lot of people talking about how this is their own fault, that they should have expected it, that they should have been prepared. Victim blaming, some would say, even.
But even if you assign blame to the OP for not expecting this, it doesn't look good, because the lesson here is "you shouldn't use google and if you do, expect them to fuck you over, for no reason, at any time".
- wpietri 8y agoExactly. The whole point of using AWS, Google Cloud, etc, is that you get to stop thinking about certain classes of problems. An infrastructure provider that is unreliable cancels most of the value of using them for infrastructure.
- mmt 8y agoWorse, they can potentially more than cancel it out, if they merely remove the "worrying about hardware" (yes, and network and load balancers and everything else) aspects, which are, at least, well understood by some us out on the market, and replace it with "worrying about the provider" where a failure scenario is, not only more opaque, but potentially catastrophic, since it's a single vendor with all the infrastructure. It reminds me of AWS's opacity-as-antidote-to-worry with respect to hardware failures. If the underlying hardware fails, the EC2 instance on it just disappears (I've heard GCP handles this better, and AWS might now, as well). I like to point out that this doesn't differ much from the situation of running physical hardware (while ignoring the hardware monitoring), both from a "worry" burden perspective and from a "downtime from hardware failure" perspective.