But it is possible and AWS has both proven that and demonstrated strategies that work well. The strong separation of regions (i.e. no automated system that mana

But it is possible and AWS has both proven that and demonstrated strategies that work well. The strong separation of regions (i.e. no automated system that manage multiple regions) is a simple technique that is very effective at reducing blast radius. There are other high availability tricks like shuffle sharding that I assume/hope GCP is already using heavily. AWS also has different tiers of services with different uptime expectations and their Tier 1 services have generally had exceptional uptime whereas the last two major GCP outages seem to have been problems in their Tier 1 services (too early to say for sure on this outage, but the widespread downstream effects make it seem likely that the failure occurred in a foundation-level service). Although I am loathe to judge technical quality/decisions from the outside, it feels like there might be a deeper problem at play here. AWS does an excellent job of aligning development priorities with business requirements by watching availability metrics religiously (the CEO looks at availability metrics every single week) and having a pager culture where if you built it you maintain it so you're properly incentivized to build fundamentally reliable services/features. My understanding is that GCP relies on the SRE model and I question whether that is as effective as the incentive structure is far more complex.