> Not what serverless was designed to do. I think the point of the piece was more "what serverless could be" rather than what we have right now. I don't think

> Not what serverless was designed to do. I think the point of the piece was more "what serverless could be" rather than what we have right now. I don't think there's any concrete definition of what serverless is, let alone what its designed to do! The thing the article brushes over is the maintenance/operational burden of running stuff on VMs. It says they achieved much better performance training a machine learning model on a single EC2 instanec, but failed to mention setting up monitoring, logging, deploying code, making that reliable etc. That's the trade off you make