Simple is always a relative term. Off the shelf computers have so many layers of complexity in them that are just not visible to you, sometimes even if you sig

Simple is always a relative term. Off the shelf computers have so many layers of complexity in them that are just not visible to you, sometimes even if you sign NDA blood pacts to ask. But since they work 99.9% of the time for many new components after the first month or so, and you can just treat them as opaque building blocks to swap on failure, you don't have to care about the complexity, because it behaves as expected and can be replaced if it ceases. Then the more complicated systems you build on top of this, the less reliable they can be, because they're all lower-bounded by the 99.9 of each computer in the system's part, and each thing you build out of all of them can be no more than, say, 95%. So then you build a bunch of the 95 things and cleverly arrange it so you can distribute among them to not care if some go away, and get a reliability that's a function of the thing you're using to do the distributing and those 95s, let's say 99.9. Your org is probably on a line between these three - just be sure to watch and be wary that at some point, you will likely see things going more toward 95% or less from human error or other factors, and be aware that you'll be ticking toward the cost of outsourcing your stack to a provider being less than the cost of running it yourself. (Work for elgooG, not on anything related to any of this, opinions my own.)